Latest / Make Water Work Podcast / Catalyst Collab: George Schuler | Make Water Work 041

Transcript

Catalyst Collab: George Schuler | Make Water Work 041 · Make Water Work Podcast

0:01
I'm Isaac with 120 Water
0:03
>> and I'm Chelsea with Rogue Water and
0:05
we're excited to welcome you to the Make
0:07
Water Work and Catalyst Collab.
0:24
Well, hi everyone. I'm Isaac from 120
0:26
water and welcome to the make water work
0:29
catalyst collab. This is a podcast
0:32
series leading up to the catalyst not
0:35
conference. It's an experience. They
0:37
don't have speakers. They have guides.
0:39
Um but we have the privilege of
0:42
interviewing one of those guides who
0:44
will be um really walking through what
0:47
it means to have impactful
0:49
communication. And um I'm excited to
0:52
have this conversation. It's with George
0:54
Schuler who is the co-founder of
0:56
Connecting for Change. He's a system
0:58
strategist and network analyst who has
1:00
spent nearly three decades working at
1:02
the intersection of water conservation,
1:05
philanthropy, and global institutions.
1:08
So, welcome, George, to the podcast.
1:11
>> Thanks. Great to be here.
1:13
>> Yeah. I um when I was talking to Chelsea
1:16
about um about having this podcast
1:19
series, um she brought up your name
1:22
right away. She's like, "I'm really
1:23
excited to introduce you to George um
1:25
and what he's going to be bringing to
1:27
this year's catalyst." And so, um I'm
1:30
excited to have this conversation. I
1:32
love starting every conversation that we
1:34
have on this podcast with the um with
1:38
the question, "How did water find you?"
1:41
So, George, how did water find you?
1:45
You know, it's kind of funny because the
1:47
water community is is the only one that
1:50
has that kind that that very
1:54
um familyoriented question about like
1:58
how did this how did this come into your
1:59
life? And um I I tell that to other
2:02
groups that are not from the water
2:03
sector and they they all look at me like
2:05
I'm a little bit um off. But I think
2:08
that for me it was water that found me.
2:11
I didn't necessarily find water. I was
2:15
um I was an environmental science major
2:18
coming out of graduate school and
2:20
looking I knew the things that I wanted
2:22
to work on. I wanted to be close to
2:24
nature. I wanted to be um in the context
2:27
of working with people in communities,
2:29
having grown up in uh rural Ohio on a
2:32
farm. And um my first job was working in
2:36
a river basin in a small really rural
2:40
type area with the river just feets feet
2:43
away from my office. And I I had all the
2:47
tools. I had studied water and rivers in
2:50
college and in grad school. It was kind
2:52
of it was a it was a hidden thing that
2:54
was easy for me to understand and I had
2:56
I had a lot of experience with it. Um
2:58
and so all of a sudden I found myself
3:01
being a water person and it wasn't like
3:04
a life's ambition.
3:06
>> Yeah.
3:07
>> But it just it found me and then said
3:09
hey hey this is a good space for you.
3:11
And the people I think that that subtext
3:14
also was the people both professional
3:16
and the way that citizens oriented
3:19
themselves to water in general in the
3:21
places that I worked
3:23
>> um really kind of cemented that
3:25
relationship for me and said, "Okay,
3:27
you're one of us. This is your tribe."
3:29
>> Yeah. Yeah. That that's phenomenal. And
3:32
take us a little bit from um tell us a
3:35
little bit about your early work leading
3:37
up to um creating Connecting for Change.
3:42
Uh so I had a really I was with the
3:45
Nature Conservancy for 28 years and I
3:49
had a really interesting career and I
3:52
started I was hired as the program
3:54
director for a watershed initiative. One
3:57
of the early ones in the nature
3:59
conservancy where it was beginning to
4:01
shift from rare species and nature
4:03
preserves to kind of landscapes
4:05
waterheds and I was one of the early
4:08
water hires. There was they in fact it
4:11
was probably the first wave of water
4:12
hires in the conservancy
4:14
>> and it meant that I had to do everything
4:17
from community organizing to developing
4:21
uh monitoring plans and leading science
4:23
crews to writing grants to managing the
4:26
preserve just because my office was
4:28
there. And so it was this microcosm of
4:31
all the skills you'd need in
4:32
conservation including being a
4:34
freshwater biologist. And that grew from
4:37
from doing some land acquisitions to and
4:41
doing some really basic water quality
4:43
monitoring to running a really large
4:46
basin monitoring program with a federal
4:48
partner to the conservy's first dam
4:51
removal and actually the first dam
4:53
removal in New York State for
4:54
environmental reasons. Large policy
4:57
changes around water supply in um in New
5:01
York City and in the Delaware River
5:02
Basin.
5:04
it and it was this progression of I
5:07
would always run I would build kind of
5:09
an understanding of the problem I had to
5:11
solve. I would work on it work on it. I
5:13
would find connections to other teams
5:17
and other places either that could help
5:19
me like my federal my USGS partners
5:23
could help me do something or it might
5:26
have been somebody in another country in
5:27
another state that was doing something
5:29
and my brain could piece together, hey,
5:31
I can learn something from this and this
5:33
will help. And so I started to build
5:36
both this relational network, but also
5:38
that let me travel to other countries
5:41
and coach other teams or be part of
5:44
other planning um teams for water
5:46
resource projects in the Caribbean or in
5:49
China. And so my my kind of my
5:52
experience around water and kind of
5:54
applying how I understood water grew not
5:58
only in the water perspective but also
6:00
in um just in conservation putting
6:02
trying other models for things.
6:05
>> And I think the through thread was in
6:09
the early days I wanted to be seen as a
6:11
scientist and have more data and better
6:13
models so that people could they could
6:15
see the truth.
6:16
>> Yeah. And if they saw the truth, they
6:18
would do better. They would make better
6:20
decisions. And then I realized that's
6:22
ridiculous. That doesn't happen that
6:24
way. What what And it was a there was a
6:27
there was a real profound moment where
6:30
we had been working on environmental
6:31
flows. We were trying to build tools so
6:33
that New York State could make water
6:35
management decisions better. And we were
6:38
grounding it in the best science
6:40
available that we could put together.
6:43
>> Yeah. And uh uh there came a moment
6:46
where I think it was the state of
6:47
Michigan created a new permitting
6:49
framework around water. And what I what
6:52
we all realized my little team was
6:55
>> it was grounded in science but really
6:58
that it was bounded by the decisions of
7:01
what did people want their rivers and
7:04
lakes and streams to look like in the
7:06
future.
7:07
>> That was kind of the big thing. And that
7:10
was the shift I think for me in some
7:13
real foundational ways from
7:16
data is the truth to
7:20
people are the are kind of the firmament
7:22
that that sits in. And getting people to
7:24
move in the right direction and be
7:26
connected in the right ways to make
7:28
active decisions about what they want
7:30
the future to be like was a shift. And
7:34
so the last decade or so at the Nature
7:38
Conservancy really was about in a very
7:41
active sense because we had an
7:43
initiative around this um establishing
7:45
new types of partners and building new
7:48
sorts of tools and approaches for people
7:51
to for there to be stakeholder
7:54
engagement or for people to work
7:56
together. And so that meant things like
7:59
um we built a a collective leadership
8:02
training program that was kind of open
8:04
source. You could use it for any social
8:06
or environmental issue. But but the the
8:09
trick was that for the water version, we
8:12
had people bring their knowledge of
8:14
water. What we conveyed to them was how
8:18
do you work together? What does
8:19
leadership look like in kind of a
8:21
distributed leadership
8:24
>> avenue? Um, we built uh board games. We
8:28
said, you know, there's enough uh
8:30
consultants and people who come into
8:33
meetings using stickies to try to get
8:35
people to on the same page. What if we
8:38
played games? And so we built an actual
8:40
board game and used it both for training
8:42
in collaboration, but also to begin
8:45
those difficult conversations in
8:47
communities. And um and then we also uh
8:51
we had built some tools that were for
8:54
the state and for stakeholders who were
8:56
applying for permits around water. And
8:59
we found that
9:01
ordinary lay people in communities were
9:04
really clamoring for them.
9:06
>> Yeah.
9:06
>> And we weren't but they had things like
9:08
uh flow duration curves. They had like
9:10
hydraologist
9:12
you know uh schematics and graphics and
9:15
and terminology in them. And we realized
9:18
that there's a mismatch here about who
9:20
wants to use this or where's the biggest
9:23
demand and then what language does it
9:26
use to convey information about water
9:28
and that solving that problem took us
9:31
down this avenue of uh we partnered with
9:35
Unity Technologies like one of the the
9:37
big game engines. So there's there's for
9:40
kids play Fortnite. Yeah.
9:42
>> So, Epic, Epic has their Unreal Engine,
9:45
which is one of the big game engines.
9:47
Unity is the other end of the barbell.
9:50
And so, we just reached out to them and
9:52
said, "We'd like to try this thing, and
9:53
we want to make it like uh
9:55
>> Clash of Clans or something. It's very
9:57
intuitive to see the landscape." And so
9:59
we built this we built this thing where
10:02
you could instead of worrying about data
10:05
and metrics and milligrams per liter. It
10:08
was really about seeing it very
10:10
intuitively and understanding, oh
10:12
there's a problem. This is where the
10:14
problem is coming from and these are the
10:16
people I need to connect with to begin
10:19
ideating around a solution or at least
10:21
some shared understanding. And so when I
10:24
left the conservancy, we had all these
10:27
we had grown into all these experiences
10:29
that were more peoplebased
10:32
and and the fundamental underlying thing
10:35
that was wow it takes a lot of time to
10:38
kind of organically find the right
10:40
partners for things, the right
10:42
collaborators, the right this or the
10:44
right mentors.
10:45
>> And there's got to be a better way.
10:48
>> Yeah. Yeah.
10:48
>> And we had stumbled in a project that we
10:51
did that was a a governance analysis of
10:54
how water decisions were made in New
10:56
York. We had stumbled into this tool
10:58
called network analysis um through a a
11:01
collaborator at the University of
11:03
Buffalo. And we start suddenly started
11:05
to see that there was a way to
11:08
systematically
11:09
and more robustly map where are the
11:12
connections between people and
11:14
institutions and and the different roles
11:17
that that people and institutions in a
11:20
map play so that it's not just the
11:22
person who is near you or or that
11:24
organization that looks like yours that
11:26
is the best one to reach out to. They're
11:29
not all created equal and some are
11:30
gatekeepers and some are real connectors
11:33
and some can help you reach something
11:35
that you don't know quite know yet. And
11:38
that fit that that meth methodology
11:42
really connected with our ethos about
11:44
how do we collaborate better
11:46
>> and that began life as uh connecting for
11:49
change and trying to bring that to the
11:52
water sector
11:54
>> because that's not what we that's not
11:56
how we work and it's it's almost social
11:58
science. So it's it's out of the kind of
12:00
the technical realm of most water
12:03
practitioners regardless of kind of
12:05
where you enter
12:06
>> and and that made us a little bit unique
12:08
and has been a really fascinating
12:10
journey to to be the voice of that
12:13
approach or the that ethos in the water
12:16
conversations.
12:17
>> Mhm. Yeah, that that makes a lot of
12:19
sense. And I'm definitely dating myself
12:22
when you're talking about building games
12:23
and simulations, you know, like when you
12:25
think about like for me it was playing
12:28
Sim City or um Roller Coaster Tycoon. um
12:32
uh th those kind of games where you're
12:34
trying to build spaces, but I think it
12:36
can be easy to let our engineering run
12:39
away with creating solutions
12:42
um or creating things before knowing all
12:46
of the variables and conversations and
12:48
impacts of everything. Um, which is
12:51
which is delicate. like we don't I I
12:54
think our human nature is to like I I
12:58
don't necessarily want to
13:00
invite too many people into the
13:02
conversation, but when you're dealing
13:04
with um shared spaces, which is, you
13:07
know, our land, our conserv the the
13:10
places that we're going to develop
13:12
things, build cities, do whatever, we
13:14
have to um have people that know how to
13:17
say, "Hey, here we need to consider
13:21
we need to consider this here's the
13:22
impact of um here's what this river
13:26
produces for this community making
13:30
changes impacts that um and then there's
13:33
no way to get around it in the in the
13:35
water space you know sometimes people
13:37
say like they love water because it's
13:40
not political on some level I'm like I
13:42
think it's I think it's actually more
13:44
than polit
13:49
organize ourselves around this resource
13:51
and understand the impact that it has on
13:53
our lives.
13:54
>> Yeah, we we had there were kind of two
13:57
moments that that connect to that that
13:59
were I think of when we were at the
14:03
Nation when my team was at the Nation
14:04
Conservancy and one was uh we were
14:07
working with a municipality upstate. We
14:09
were doing we were going to do kind of a
14:12
a a plan for how they could manage their
14:14
watershed some of which didn't their
14:17
water supply wershed. some of which
14:18
didn't sit in the the the municipalities
14:22
boundaries. It was in a neighboring one.
14:25
And I remember at the we so we would go
14:28
to the to the village council meetings
14:31
and their environmental board meetings
14:33
and at one of the village council
14:35
meetings, several representatives stood
14:38
up and said, "Is there a way to do this
14:41
without talking to the neighboring
14:44
town?" on and I said, "No, that's the
14:46
whole point here. They have a chunk of
14:49
your watershed under their zoning rags
14:52
and whatever."
14:53
>> And so that that that hey um we do need
14:57
to talk to other people and more than
14:58
that there needs to be a real
15:01
>> you a real vulnerability of that
15:03
relationship that real collaboration.
15:05
Um, and and then the other part was
15:08
that, and I think this is kind of in my
15:10
DNA and in my co-founder Sarah's DNA,
15:13
which is we arrived at that board game
15:17
because we saw a simulation model um
15:21
done by a a Dutch researcher at the at
15:24
Deltaris, their their hydrarology
15:26
institute. And we're like, this is
15:27
really cool. This would be
15:28
transformative for our partners. And
15:31
then we sat back and said, but we can't
15:33
do this. we don't we don't have enough
15:35
resources or the data to create some
15:38
some powerful models, predictive models
15:41
that then you could skin over with some
15:43
some game. And one of us had the idea
15:46
of, well, what if we just made the game
15:48
part
15:49
>> and we focused on those social elements
15:52
of, hey, how do you start to get people
15:55
to think about working with their
15:57
neighbor in collaboration or working
15:58
with another role in the watershed in
16:02
collaboration to solve a shared problem.
16:05
Um, so that's a that that's a that that
16:09
was a really critical kind of touch
16:11
point for us to say, hm, there there's a
16:14
through thread here about collaboration
16:17
and looking beyond your boundaries.
16:19
>> Mhm. Yeah. Yeah. I like what you said
16:22
about that, you know, forcing forcing
16:26
some level of vulnerability and that's
16:29
while that's not something that that we
16:30
want to do, creating the safe space of
16:33
letting people um work through that I
16:36
think is almost an exercise in saying
16:39
helping helping us understand what are
16:42
the right questions we should be asking.
16:43
I think a lot of times we we enter into
16:46
things just saying I have my position,
16:49
I'm for or against versus saying we have
16:52
to have a conversation and understanding
16:54
of how we're going to use something that
16:56
is um that is literally fluid. And so we
17:02
don't always we don't own every part of
17:04
it. And so um so we we have to we have
17:09
to enter lean into the actual human
17:11
experience that we um that were actually
17:14
designed to have more than anything
17:16
else. The the other thing that I think
17:19
in the last few years that I've learned
17:23
is that there's there's another there's
17:26
an a complicating skin to that which is
17:30
um the institutions that we that we work
17:34
for or that are part of that landscape.
17:38
Um while many of them
17:41
many of the individuals in them and the
17:43
even their missions uh can
17:46
philosophically recognize the need for
17:49
collaboration or for coordinated action
17:53
or collective action.
17:56
Their incentives for that kind of
17:59
prevent that in some ways. And so
18:01
nonprofits
18:03
um nonprofits are often often kind of in
18:07
looked at as this is the lynch pin to
18:10
kind of putting utilities and um funders
18:14
and corporations together except that
18:18
nonprofits are kind of also driven by
18:20
resource scarcity. They to ensure
18:23
resources they've got to kind of make
18:24
sure their brand is out there. there's
18:26
an ownership to their ideas or coming up
18:31
with a new idea or to a project that
18:34
almost precludes them from being
18:36
vulnerable enough to say, "Okay, the
18:39
only way to solve this is if we all kind
18:41
of give up a little
18:43
>> and and and work give some give some
18:48
permission to each other to set goals
18:49
and to kind of chime in and be
18:52
collaborative here." And we see that
18:55
um we see that in a lot of different
18:57
ways. All the way from kind of
18:59
inadvertent we have our portfolio, we
19:01
kind of draw our line, we only work
19:03
here, we kind of work with certain
19:04
organizations. from that kind of mild um
19:09
almost accidental
19:12
inability to kind of really deeply
19:14
collaborate all the way to the
19:17
fearfulness of if we don't show up at
19:20
this meeting and say our stuff, our our
19:23
branding, you know, or our view of the
19:26
world, then the other people at the
19:28
meeting, someone else at the meeting,
19:30
another institution will put its message
19:33
out there and they will own the issue.
19:35
and we'll we won't be able to continue.
19:38
>> Yeah. We'll be we need to be on offense,
19:40
not we don't want to be on defense the
19:42
whole time.
19:42
>> And and so there's all this there's this
19:45
we we're not really strengthened or
19:47
incentivized to do it all the way to the
19:49
shadow side of collaboration, which is
19:51
almost being subverted. And I don't
19:53
think any of it is totally conscious.
19:56
And I think it's not totally conscious
19:58
because we often don't look at the the
20:00
network effects of, oh, it's not just us
20:04
showing up and trying to deal with them.
20:07
It really is we're all connected here
20:09
trying to solve a larger problem
20:11
>> and I don't quite see that landscape
20:14
clearly to understand, oh, I'm one of
20:16
many and I'm truly one of many. Yeah.
20:19
>> Um so there there's that complicating
20:22
skin over the institutions that we we
20:24
kind of rely on um that that complicates
20:29
how we collaborate as a movement around
20:32
water
20:33
climate. We see this in philanthropy.
20:36
>> We we did a recent analysis of the Great
20:40
Lakes um funders network and looking at
20:44
all of their giving, not just uh not
20:47
just water, but everything. And what was
20:49
really interesting was despite the fact
20:52
that there's a lot of resources going
20:54
into a geographic region to solve a lot
20:56
of social and environmental problems,
20:59
the portfolios for each are fairly
21:01
discreet. There is a fairly small
21:04
percentage of um nonprofits that are
21:07
getting funding from multiple sources
21:10
>> which one suggestion from that is we're
21:13
not able we're not built to be able to
21:15
focus on really either really
21:18
high-erforming
21:20
uh uh nonprofits or really critical
21:24
projects or issues where we're we can or
21:27
are making a difference. we're really
21:30
kind of in our own little silos.
21:32
>> And that is something that in a lot of
21:35
different lights we have seen play out
21:37
every time we've kind of done a larger a
21:40
some sort of larger analysis around
21:42
funding or collaboration that that
21:45
things start to they separate and silo
21:48
out.
21:48
>> Yeah.
21:48
>> Um pretty pretty clearly.
21:51
>> Yeah. That reminds me a lot like of it's
21:55
it's the pendulum swing that we even see
21:58
in in government funding with SRF.
22:01
There's always this like you know state
22:03
revolving loan funds there are these
22:05
things but then there's this always
22:08
tense um tension and conversation around
22:12
earmarks and like well what happens when
22:14
things get specified here and people
22:16
can't decide what it's how it's best
22:18
used for the
22:20
>> greater good of their state. Uh but the
22:22
notion of ear marks helps um elected
22:26
officials put their name on something to
22:27
keep the program going in the first
22:28
place. So it's just there's just kind of
22:30
this like stuck in the middle um aspect.
22:33
And um you were saying before we before
22:36
we hit record, you were talking about
22:37
how you you know this conversation was
22:39
coming off of the heels um of an event
22:42
that you were just at that kind of
22:44
illustrated the network effect. Um would
22:45
love for you to talk more about that.
22:48
Yeah. So, it was the um the Alliance for
22:50
Water Stewardships um global water
22:53
stewardship summit and throughout all
22:56
the conversations whether they were
22:58
about innovative funding or um uh the
23:03
the the alliance's membership structure
23:06
or corporate water stewardship projects
23:09
around the world. There was there was a
23:12
lot of talk about collective action was
23:14
the way to kind of essentially scale up
23:16
impact. But but it but and explicitly
23:20
this was the first year that I can
23:21
remember this ever being said that
23:23
explicitly it relied upon trust and
23:26
relationships. Every every kind of
23:30
dissection or description of a project
23:32
or a or a or a convening or a gathering
23:35
or something it was multistakeholder
23:37
kind of at some point said something
23:40
about trust and relationships. But then
23:42
there was this jump from yeah these are
23:45
the really this is really what matters
23:47
to hey we should we need more funding or
23:51
we need to you know have a platform that
23:53
people can interact with or we just need
23:55
to get more people in the room or make
23:57
sure there's more diversity and it kind
23:59
of skipped over we spend a lot of time
24:01
on um infrastructure whether it's real
24:05
in water infrastructure or kind of the
24:07
the institutional infrastructure of of
24:11
money power, you know, coordination,
24:13
etc.
24:14
>> And we spend very little time even
24:17
talking about the relational
24:19
infrastructure. And I I think it is in
24:22
part because that's a soft skill that is
24:25
perceived as a soft skill. I mean, most
24:28
>> engineers and communicators and
24:31
biologists
24:32
>> and managers don't know kind of the
24:35
social science part of that where you
24:37
can measure those things. you you can
24:39
come up with ways to build trust and and
24:42
familiarity and and build those
24:44
relational ties. It's just out of our
24:47
it's beyond our purview or beyond the
24:49
it's in the midst of the edges of the
24:51
water community.
24:52
>> Yeah.
24:53
>> And we're not alone in that, but it's
24:54
one of those things where it was always
24:56
mentioned, but the solutions never
24:58
revolved around it. And we could just if
25:02
we just reached out we could we could
25:03
grab some expertise and bring it into
25:06
the fold which is
25:07
>> I think become connecting for change's
25:10
role in these conversations.
25:13
>> Yeah. Yeah. That reminds me like one of
25:16
my um one one quote that kind of lives
25:20
lives rentree in my head. I believe it
25:22
was FDR said you know people don't care
25:25
how much you know until they know how
25:26
much you care. And that is just that
25:29
plays out over and over that it's like
25:32
they only know what how much you care
25:34
once you start communicating and they
25:37
feel trusted with
25:39
information or trusted with
25:41
transparency. And I recognize that
25:43
that's a double-edged sword of like how
25:46
much unstructured information do you
25:48
want to give give people that is
25:51
actually more confusing and doesn't
25:53
>> doesn't allow them to react to anything.
25:57
um substantial. So like there's an art
25:59
in creating the container for the
26:01
conversation
26:03
um and recognizing that we're stewards
26:06
of different kinds of containers um and
26:08
we're we're figuring out where these
26:10
overlay
26:11
>> and I and I think you this is a little
26:14
bit of a of a diversion from that but I
26:17
think there is a a relationship that um
26:20
we see that a lot. So as a as a bio
26:26
early in my career as a biologist or
26:28
hydraologist
26:29
um I did monitoring projects we had data
26:33
we tried to use that data and have that
26:35
data inform local decisions or
26:37
organizational decisions and it took a
26:40
long time to realize that the the data
26:44
that was meaningful to me wasn't
26:47
necessarily meaningful to others. And I
26:51
think there is this there is and there
26:54
is this simultaneously there is in kind
26:57
of in the in the environmental movement
26:59
broadly there is always this clamor for
27:02
more data.
27:03
>> And I I think there is a slight
27:06
disconnect between the the more data or
27:10
any data communicating what really
27:14
people need to know. What people need to
27:16
know not what the data says is you need
27:19
to know this. it's hey this would help
27:22
me. Um and in fact we had a we we had a
27:25
discussion with
27:27
>> um an institution recently and they they
27:29
were building out a dashboard to make
27:31
water management decisions and I was I I
27:35
kind of called out and I said um
27:38
>> so you're dealing with citizens who are
27:40
part of the decision-m process in the
27:42
state you're at. uh do do they know what
27:46
you know these units mean and how will
27:50
they know when it's too little or too
27:52
much or whether they're right on because
27:55
that you're not articulating that in the
27:57
in the dashboard or the tool and I think
28:00
that there is this this giving people
28:03
the pieces of information
28:05
>> in the way or the tools in the way that
28:08
they need to to be able to do something
28:11
productive with it constructive with
28:13
And that is there is more to that than I
28:17
think there is more art or science to
28:20
that than I think that we give credit
28:22
for. Um and I I think we see that in our
28:26
relational work too that we you know
28:30
>> uh my co-founder and I have worked
28:31
really hard to we we don't give giant
28:35
spidery network maps to people because
28:39
it looks cool and nearly every network
28:42
scientist network analyst gives you that
28:44
but you're like well there are a few
28:46
things I can take away from the best of
28:48
them but most of them they're just too
28:51
overwhelming. What I really need to know
28:53
is
28:55
>> who do I who do I go to? Who do I talk
28:57
to? Where where where is that path that
29:00
I can thread that gets gets me my end
29:02
objective? A new funer, a new
29:04
collaborator, a new
29:06
>> a new something or strengthens
29:08
something. And often times that's not
29:10
the raw data set looking at you or
29:13
>> something an academic would would want
29:15
there. There's a place for that, but
29:17
it's trying to kind of mesh what is what
29:19
do the people that really are on the
29:21
ground or on the edge need to know and
29:24
what is it that I have that I can kind
29:25
of transform into that.
29:27
>> Mhm. Yeah. Yeah. And now and that those
29:31
kind of themes
29:33
pull me so much into the world of like
29:37
um you know some of the psychologists
29:40
and um folks who lean in into that for
29:44
um for the way they talk about
29:45
communication. But I think about like
29:47
Bnee Brown talking you know her phrase
29:49
of clear is kind and how do you give
29:51
clarity to what you're actually trying
29:52
to communicate. It's not giving tons of
29:55
information as much as it is giving
29:57
insight about what are what are we what
30:00
are we talking about? like it's um and
30:03
that a lot of times we can we can
30:06
mistake giving a lot of things as
30:09
communicating when it's actually
30:12
creating more confusion cuz it's taking
30:14
me a lot of time to process it and then
30:17
my my brain checks out and then I and
30:19
then I'm just going to latch on to
30:21
whatever
30:22
>> whatever thing seemed interesting. Um,
30:25
and I I think we see that a lot with
30:27
like um how uh information becomes
30:31
misinformation or or disinformation or
30:34
something else is like there was so much
30:38
enough of it felt true and it ran ran
30:40
away and now we're um combating versus
30:42
saying, "Hey, we're going to agree
30:44
within this container." Um which is
30:48
epically hard to do.
30:50
>> Yeah. And and there and there is kind I
30:53
think in the water community there is a
30:56
there is a challenge that compounds that
30:59
that that just the raw idea of message
31:03
or utility of of information packet and
31:08
it's that um and my so my my co-founder
31:12
um Sarah lives in Maine. I'm in New York
31:15
and she has a role that uh locally she
31:19
works with the soil water district and
31:21
others on on local water issues. And
31:24
there was one particular day she wrote
31:26
me um she was working with a farmer
31:30
standing on the edge of a drainage ditch
31:32
looking at where it was dumping into a
31:34
creek and there was a bridge that was of
31:36
concern um uh because it had been
31:39
flooded out a couple times and so that
31:41
and it was tied to could the ambulance
31:44
is a really rural area. could the
31:45
ambulance and firetrs get over it
31:47
reliably? Kind of a very nuts andbolts
31:49
on the ground type thing.
31:51
>> And I was I was sitting on a virtual
31:54
meeting with uh global institutions
31:57
talking about
32:00
>> global water, you know, sustainability
32:02
goals. And she said, where is the
32:05
connection between the two of those?
32:06
It's like crazy that you and I are in
32:09
the same field and we we're disconnected
32:12
by that much. And it began this idea of
32:16
there are examples in the world where
32:19
the knowledge and experience of of
32:21
utilities and conservation groups who
32:24
are doing projects on the ground feeds
32:26
back to that that center that that where
32:30
they're setting large goals or
32:32
frameworks or understanding what is
32:34
happening on the ground and changing
32:36
policy in some cases. But the water
32:39
sector doesn't really have that. And I
32:42
would argue that there are that it's not
32:44
unique to us, but that example where
32:46
what we say the center is connected to
32:48
the edges and there's the ability to
32:50
learn
32:51
>> the and the ability is not just we're
32:53
going to shove stuff, you know, our
32:54
great ideas from from Washington or New
32:58
York down into, you know, Cincinnati,
33:00
Ohio. it's that um we recognize what the
33:04
learnings are from the Cincinnati Water
33:07
Utility um back at the center and hey
33:10
that influences the goals or the
33:12
framework or the tools or whatever it is
33:14
that our center role is so that when we
33:17
send it out next time they see
33:18
themselves in it
33:20
>> and there's that feedback loop and we
33:22
see that there there issues there are um
33:25
there are examples from politics there
33:27
are examples from co-management of
33:29
fisheries and even M
33:31
>> um uh uh tribal management of bison
33:35
herds out west where they've kind of
33:37
perfected this. it it goes out, but
33:39
there's also a signal that comes back.
33:41
And so it's vibrant and everybody feels
33:44
connected to a movement or at least a
33:47
purpose.
33:48
>> And it's part of that keeping the
33:51
fidelity of information, but it's and it
33:54
and it is also having the pathways to
33:56
connect that that learning and then the
33:59
data the data and experience root back
34:01
to the center to be digested and put
34:04
into the hole. um which is which is
34:07
really missing because we don't and I
34:09
think it's I think what it gets labeled
34:11
as
34:12
many times at the global level is well
34:15
we don't have something as simple as you
34:18
know carbon concentrations in the
34:20
atmosphere. We need something really
34:22
simple and I think it's
34:24
>> I I I think it's more than simple. I
34:26
think it's how we invest in making sure
34:29
that
34:30
the that restoration project in Florida
34:34
and the water utility in Philadelphia,
34:37
those messages and and lessons learned
34:40
and and investments and experiences feed
34:43
back into, oh, this is what this is what
34:46
it means to do this thing well, or this
34:49
is how we can change our our incentive
34:51
structure so there's more funding or
34:53
better capacity building or whatever it
34:55
may
34:56
And we we lose that sometimes.
34:58
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, we do. And it's it's
35:01
it's one of those things that is just um
35:04
as from from my perspective um in uh
35:10
coming from 120 water where we work with
35:13
um communities and state agencies um
35:15
more specific on regulation for
35:18
utilities um most popularly with lead uh
35:22
lead legislation. there's a lot of
35:25
transparency and the EPA is demanding a
35:27
lot more data be reported up and
35:29
communicated out and that transparency
35:31
loop is
35:33
uh it both you know I I think we're
35:37
still in the middle of grappling with
35:39
like hey that helps each state kind of
35:41
put some benchmarks that has to be
35:43
published we're trying to get to zero
35:45
lead how are we doing how much is left
35:48
what are we doing over this 10-year time
35:49
frame so it does it does time box it a
35:51
little bit and it it at least gives some
35:53
standard standardization
35:55
um um to it. But um but there's there's
35:59
always that role of how much do you
36:01
standardize versus how much do you allow
36:04
to be localized um because uh each each
36:09
place has different things that are
36:12
important or constraints um to them.
36:16
>> Yeah. And the the thing that kind of
36:19
reminds me of is so we a couple years
36:22
ago um uh Sarah Weightley and I and some
36:27
some others who used to be at the Nature
36:29
Conservancy published a paper on on data
36:32
use
36:34
by utilities and others in New York
36:36
State. And it was re for for water
36:39
management. And it was re what was
36:40
really fascinating was the data that
36:43
they were investing in collecting was
36:47
stuff that was um
36:50
compliance-based. It was it was in the
36:52
regulations and you do this.
36:54
>> It was not the data that many of them
36:56
said, hey, if we really if you really
36:59
wanted us to manage things long-term or
37:01
in the context of climate change or for
37:04
these other things, we would actually
37:06
choose ourselves. And I I thought that
37:09
was a really interesting finding from
37:12
that. And then also knowing how our and
37:16
New York is a may not be a unique case
37:19
in many ways, but I think in a
37:22
regulatory or governance uh situation,
37:24
it kind of is big,
37:27
>> you know, seemingly wealthy state, but
37:29
our agencies, they're juggling a lot.
37:32
They're under they're underresourced.
37:34
And so their ability to kind of say,
37:36
"Wait a second,
37:38
>> we we can send a better signal out to
37:42
our the the data generators and the
37:44
actual managers of resources both in the
37:47
water utility realm, but also in the
37:49
environmental realm. And we can we can
37:51
do a better job of having this back and
37:53
forth with them. M
37:55
>> and
37:57
and there are also state agencies that
37:58
are not able to New York doesn't have a
38:01
water resource management plan at the
38:03
state level.
38:04
>> It it it ju it can't it it doesn't have
38:07
enough bandwidth to do that and hasn't
38:09
since the late 80s. And so there's some
38:12
real fundamental structural challenges
38:14
that we're not investing in as a society
38:18
that could help prepare us for the
38:19
future. And then I also lay on top of
38:22
this. I got a call, it's been a while
38:25
ago because I was still at the
38:26
conservancy, but for a decade or 15
38:30
years, I was deeply involved with the
38:33
Delaware River Basin Commission and the
38:35
state agencies that were party to and
38:38
and
38:41
I think we all my teams moved on the
38:44
conser we had the conservy's priority
38:46
shifted. We had done what we said we
38:48
were going to do and some of the some of
38:50
the agency folks had gone on to retire
38:52
and been promoted in all the states. And
38:56
one day I got a call from someone who
38:58
had who had been a a a peer and a
39:01
partner in those decision-making forums
39:04
and was now at the top of his agency in
39:07
his respective state and said, you know,
39:09
we're running into a problem. And the
39:10
problem is is that there was a 20 or 30
39:15
year kind of overlap of people in the
39:19
states and the cities and the federal
39:20
government who all worked together. And
39:23
so they they knew they knew the system,
39:25
they knew the technical system, they
39:27
knew the regulatory system, they also
39:29
knew they had their social bonds. And so
39:31
they knew how to negotiate and navigate
39:34
things socially to arrive at we're going
39:37
to make this decision about this program
39:39
this year and we're all going to be okay
39:41
with it. And he said
39:43
>> most of them are gone. So now we have um
39:46
te really competent people but people
39:49
who don't know the technical system,
39:51
they don't know the regulatory the
39:53
combined regulatory system and they
39:56
don't have those social bonds. And so it
39:58
is it is taking them much longer and it
40:03
is unclear if they can kind of arrive
40:05
the same decisions to make the system
40:10
work that that we could for nearly three
40:13
decades. And I thought that was like one
40:15
the fact that he recognized that and was
40:18
calling me about it was was just
40:21
mind-blowing. But also, it was something
40:23
I had never thought of because I always
40:24
think, oh yeah, this the state agencies
40:28
do their stuff or the legislature does
40:30
their stuff. They'll kind of always
40:31
figure it out. And then you realize it
40:34
really comes down to those relationships
40:36
and trust
40:37
>> that are the lubricant that makes it
40:39
work or or doesn't make it work. Yeah.
40:42
>> And that that that handoff if we had
40:45
known that was going to be the outcome
40:46
in you know I don't know what it was
40:48
2020 after working on it since 1997
40:53
>> we might have put in you know um
40:55
succession plans or
40:58
>> done water university or something so
41:00
that that next crop or the that there
41:03
could be those people with those
41:04
relationships and the preparation to
41:07
step into those roles. And granted, some
41:10
of them may have been political
41:11
appointees, but there if you had
41:13
invested in that relational
41:14
infrastructure, you might not be in that
41:16
deficit,
41:18
>> you know, 30, 20 years later.
41:20
>> Yeah. Yeah. It's so so critical. I know
41:24
when when we're um bringing on account
41:26
managers or, you know, even um folks who
41:30
are focused on new business for um we've
41:32
said for a long time, you know, business
41:34
moves at the speed of trust. And so if
41:36
you don't have that like that's
41:39
ultimately we meas like you said you
41:41
measure all of you measure all of these
41:43
things but at a fundamental level it's
41:45
actually a report card of how how much
41:48
are we able to build build trust across
41:51
stakeholders. Things move faster when
41:54
there's trust because you're you don't
41:56
have to
41:57
>> you don't have to do all of the all the
41:59
work of of and but it's it is hard work
42:02
to build trust. Um
42:04
>> and and you need people committed to um
42:08
>> you need all stakeholders committed to
42:10
um to doing that.
42:13
>> So so the to kind of finally put put a
42:16
pin on that um
42:19
three years ago we um we did a network
42:22
analysis of the the 2023 UN um water
42:27
meeting
42:28
>> and then uh world water week of that
42:30
same year. And one of the things that
42:33
jumped out, it was funny. We were
42:35
working with a partner, um, a technical
42:38
partner that does some of the hardcore
42:40
network analysis, uh, statistics at the
42:43
time, and he doesn't know the water
42:45
network, but when he saw the raw the raw
42:47
output of our data, he said, "That's a
42:49
really fragmented network." And so if
42:53
you've ever been to any of those
42:54
national or global meetings, it is very
42:58
>> I'm going to overstate it and say it
42:59
feels like family, but there is this
43:02
sense that it is a very tightlyknit
43:04
network, but in reality it's not. That
43:08
was one finding. The second finding was
43:11
there were a small number of people that
43:13
were the connectors between, you know,
43:17
the pharmaceutical and the energy sector
43:19
and the nonprofit, you know, nature
43:21
people versus the nonprofit water
43:23
people. There were really thin threads
43:26
that connected them and and you could
43:29
you could name you could almost name all
43:31
of them. Um they're obvious, but but
43:35
>> so that was the second finding. And then
43:37
especially with the UN meeting, what was
43:39
really interesting was the evidence that
43:41
if you invested
43:44
um so the Netherlands was one of the
43:46
sponsors of the meeting. The Netherlands
43:48
also
43:50
um sponsored the New York Water Week
43:53
which was happening simultaneously
43:55
and you could see that in the network.
43:57
You could see that that they were
43:59
connecting nodes. the the woman who was
44:01
head of the New York Water Week uh
44:03
institution and the couple individuals
44:06
from the Netherlands government or
44:08
representatives were there some others
44:10
and then the other one was um there was
44:13
Mina Goul's uh run for the blue and Mina
44:17
showed up and her connection to other um
44:21
other sectors running communities in
44:23
Kenya or wherever it may be showed up
44:26
and it was a really strong signal that
44:28
if you invested in connecting people.
44:31
And granted, these may have been
44:32
superficial connections, but if you
44:34
invested in building them, you you could
44:37
you could see it in the data.
44:40
>> And the example I always use in our
44:43
trainings and and the stuff we
44:45
facilitate is um is Gmail. Gmail started
44:49
off only internal to the Google offices,
44:52
but there were there were Google alumni
44:55
and and friends who were at MIT and
44:58
Harvard and they started the folks in
45:00
Certino started to share their their
45:02
links with them and you there's a study
45:06
out there that shows how what started
45:08
off as really thin bridges between a few
45:11
individuals in the in the Google
45:13
headquarters and in these research
45:15
institutions started to multiply.
45:18
And you got to a point where there were
45:20
really wide bridges with lots of
45:22
connections that came out organically
45:24
and then it was something that Google
45:27
probably knew and was probably part of
45:29
the road map you couldn't contain and so
45:31
you need to release it more broadly. But
45:33
those bridges can be built and they're
45:36
really fundamental to creating you know
45:39
whether it's momentum to disseminate
45:41
something or the strength of resilience
45:44
of an idea or movement
45:46
>> and ultimately it it's individuals. So
45:49
that trust of who do I connect with here
45:53
>> to find out something or to say
45:55
something or to make something happen.
45:58
>> Yeah. I I mean I I feel like that that
46:02
lands us perfectly into what you know
46:08
what happens at Catalyst in um that uh
46:13
Chelsea and and Rogue Water um and Greg
46:16
have really you know created was how do
46:18
you build those connections and and I
46:21
I've really appreciated how much they've
46:24
um been intentional about um being
46:27
intentional about creating the case, but
46:29
also being intentional about leaving
46:31
enough enough freedom within that
46:33
framework for those connections to
46:34
happen. Um, one of the things we're not
46:37
allowed to do that um Chelsea and I
46:39
talked about on this podcast was she
46:42
likes for things to be surprises at
46:45
Catalyst. So, she's like, I don't want
46:47
to give everything away um on any
46:50
interview. if they want more, you're
46:52
gonna have to sign up um and uh check
46:55
out the conference um which will be in
46:57
in the show notes to sign up and and um
47:00
any of the guests that are listening
47:02
would would get to know more, get to
47:04
experience um what you're going to bring
47:06
as a guide to um to Catalyst and um I
47:10
could easily this conversation could go
47:12
on for another hour. Um and uh I'm
47:16
excited that that this has been the
47:18
conduit to connect us, George. And um
47:20
thank you so much for being being on
47:22
this podcast. Um and I'm looking forward
47:24
to meeting you in person at uh at
47:26
Catalyst in San Diego.
47:28
>> Yep. Absolutely. No, this is really fun
47:30
and I I like to I like that you you and
47:34
and the Rogue Water Lab crew kind of
47:37
term it as guide because that's the
47:40
that's the framing that we always use
47:43
with our with our clients and our
47:45
partners that we we don't have the
47:47
answer. We're not telling you what to do
47:49
or how to connect the system or wire it,
47:51
but we'll be a guide to show you where
47:54
the first steps are
47:55
>> and to help you kind of along the way.
47:57
And so I think it's a really great per
47:59
um description of kind of the way Sarah
48:02
and I see ourselves. I definitely see
48:03
myself that way.
48:04
>> Yeah. Yeah. It it honors the humanity of
48:07
the folks that we that you get to work
48:09
with where we we're at our best when we
48:11
get to discover things rather than be
48:13
told things. And so,
48:15
>> um, it is a process of of discovery. Um,
48:19
and so, yeah, I'm I'm thrilled, um, and
48:21
excited that we get to have this
48:23
conversation. Um, and thank you to
48:25
everyone who has tuned in to the Make
48:27
Waterwork podcast. Um, we love making
48:29
this podcast. We also really like that,
48:33
um, there's been this opportunity to
48:34
have this, um, Make Waterwork Catalyst
48:37
Collab, um, as as the kids say. But, um,
48:40
we'll see you next time and can't wait
48:41
to introduce you to our next guest.