Latest / Make Water Work Podcast / Stacy Jones: The Complex World of Water Management | Make Water Work 018

Transcript

Stacy Jones: The Complex World of Water Management | Make Water Work 018 · Make Water Work Podcast

0:00
So, all of these new federal regulations
0:02
are going to be coming out within the
0:03
next 10 years. These are just ones we
0:05
know of. There might be more things
0:06
that'll come out. Also, they're all
0:08
going to require um implementation. So,
0:10
the challenge isn't unique to
0:12
administrators, though. It's going to be
0:13
really challenging to the regulated
0:14
community as well.
0:15
>> Welcome to the Make Water Work podcast,
0:18
where we dive into the people, ideas,
0:20
and innovation shaping the future of
0:23
water. I'm your host, Isaac Pellerin,
0:25
and alongside my co-host, Megan Glover,
0:28
the founder of 120 Water, we bring you
0:31
insights from hundreds of incredible
0:33
conversations we've had over the past 9
0:35
years with inspiring and energizing
0:38
leaders in the water industry. Each
0:41
week, we share those stories and
0:43
conversations with entrepreneurs,
0:45
community champions, and innovators who
0:47
are making water work for everyone.
0:50
Whether you're a water professional, a
0:52
curious innovator, or simply passionate
0:54
about our most precious resource, this
0:56
podcast is for you. Let's get started.
1:01
Welcome to the Make Waterwork podcast
1:04
where we celebrate the people who are
1:06
innovating and serving in the water
1:08
industry. Um, we love getting to have
1:10
these conversations so much. And Megan,
1:12
tell us who we have today.
1:14
>> Yes, we have um a wonderful guest today
1:17
that we are celebrating. um Stacy Jones
1:19
with the Indiana Department of
1:21
Environmental Management. And um I'll go
1:23
into Stacy's bio in just a minute
1:25
because she's had a wonderfully tenured
1:27
career um with IDM with the exception of
1:29
a stent few years stent at um Indiana
1:32
American Water. But um uh I first
1:35
spotted I can't even say I met Stacy at
1:38
one of my very first Indiana AWA shows.
1:42
And um I knew, you know, I I knew where
1:45
Stacy worked and kind of her span of
1:47
control, if you will. But what I I what
1:50
caught my eye about Stacy is she was
1:52
wearing a DEPA lanyard.
1:54
>> And we that's what we share. We share an
1:56
alma mater. And I'm thinking there
1:58
aren't that many liberal arts graduates
2:00
that I come across in uh water and
2:04
environment. I'm like, I'm going to meet
2:07
this person. And um it's just it's one
2:09
of the the many things that I've loved
2:11
about being in this industry is not only
2:13
do you connect the dots and the work
2:15
that you do, but the connections that
2:17
you share. And so um on the podcast
2:19
today, we have uh Stacy Jones. Uh
2:21
wonderful to have you uh Stacy joining
2:23
the podcast today. I'm going to go in a
2:26
little bit of your background in your
2:27
bio because it is uh it's something to
2:29
be celebrated for sure. Um, as I
2:31
mentioned, uh, with the, uh, brief
2:33
three-year stint, uh, with Indiana
2:35
American Water, she has been with, uh,
2:38
the IDM, um, which is the Indiana, uh,
2:41
Department of Environmental Management,
2:44
the drinking water branch at IDM, um,
2:46
since March of 1992.
2:49
And she's held uh, various positions,
2:51
including regulatory implementation
2:54
specialists with the drinking water
2:55
branch. and most recently uh she is now
2:58
the section chief of the chemical and
3:01
service water compliance section uh for
3:03
the division. So we are just uh thrilled
3:05
to have you on the podcast today and I
3:07
think um really excited for you to share
3:09
um a day in the life of what you do
3:11
because it's not a it's not a role and
3:13
it's not kind of a a view that we get um
3:16
every day. So just appreciate you being
3:17
on the podcast, Stacy. So we always like
3:20
to start off and turn it to you um
3:22
because everyone has a story. They're
3:24
all very fascinating. How did water find
3:26
you?
3:27
>> That's a good question. Um, so the
3:29
summer after I graduated from college, I
3:31
actually worked with the it was the then
3:34
soil conservation service, which is now
3:35
the National Resources Conservation
3:38
NRCS. Um, but I worked with them on the
3:41
wetlands conservation project. So it was
3:44
kind of a soil water combo sort of
3:47
thing. Um we were basically looking for
3:49
hydric soils to determine whether people
3:52
would get farm subsidies or not for
3:55
draining or not draining their fields.
3:57
>> H
3:58
>> um and the year the so I did that during
4:02
the summer and that next year I started
4:04
grad school at Ball State University and
4:06
ended up focusing my studies mostly in
4:09
soil and water.
4:10
>> Okay. So, um, I had a couple of
4:14
>> temp jobs after I finished grad school
4:18
and then I, you know, ended up basically
4:22
got a call from a temporary agency
4:25
saying, "Hey, we have these positions at
4:27
IDM. Are you interested in this?" And
4:30
like, sure, why not? And I, like I said,
4:33
I ended up in the drinking water branch.
4:36
>> Yeah.
4:36
>> As a environmental scientist three. Um,
4:41
but yeah, it was it was very
4:43
interesting. So,
4:46
but yeah, that's and I've been here
4:48
pretty much ever since. I mean, I've
4:50
left left for a little bit and went to
4:52
work for a water company. Um, but yeah,
4:56
other than that, I've been doing various
4:58
different things that I do. Yeah, that's
5:00
great context to get the opportunity to
5:02
go from the regulatory side, work for
5:06
the utility and then go back um back in
5:09
kind of having some of that um contacts
5:11
and some of that learning. I am curious
5:14
like did um did you always know that you
5:16
wanted to land at the regulatory side
5:19
and kind of what drew you in into that
5:21
um into that role? So, I've actually
5:23
been on both sides and during my three
5:25
years with Indiana American Water, I
5:27
worked with the different American Water
5:29
systems in Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan.
5:32
Um, just helping to ensure that they
5:34
didn't miss any of their state required
5:36
monitoring. Um, I also helped compile
5:39
and review their consu the consumer
5:40
confidence reports for all of all those
5:43
systems.
5:44
um for a short period of time um after
5:48
we the company got purchased by a German
5:50
company and they were also they that
5:54
German company also owned T's water and
5:56
we did um
5:59
some really fun reports. We did a report
6:02
that actually looked at how many liters
6:05
of petrol and how many metric tons of
6:07
paper were used in any given month.
6:09
>> Oh my gosh. Um so yeah it's some some
6:13
different different reporting and stuff.
6:15
So um I spent the first nine years that
6:18
I was with IDM so this would be before
6:20
that regulatory piece um working with
6:22
total colformm and lend copper rules and
6:24
then help and also helping draft state
6:26
regulations
6:28
and um basically we're drafting those
6:30
state regulations. You're working from
6:32
the federal regulatory language. Um
6:34
after my stint with Indiana American, I
6:36
was rehired by IDM's regulatory
6:38
implementation specialist um helping to
6:41
implement the new rules and also working
6:43
with legal counsel to um ensure that all
6:46
the federal rules were adopted by the
6:48
state. um in that role in the that role
6:52
the role that I had as a regulatory
6:54
implementation specialist
6:56
um I worked with um US EPA on the state
6:59
EPA work groups for the LCR short-term
7:02
revisions lenarable short-term revisions
7:04
in 2007 and also on the initial draft of
7:08
what finally became the LCR. So they had
7:10
a state implementation work group in the
7:12
like 2010 2011ish time frame. Um, I
7:16
provided background material and
7:18
presentations to the National Drinking
7:19
Water Advisory Council's um, lead copper
7:21
rule subgroup and I've been involved
7:24
with both the LCRR and LCRI
7:27
implementation workg groups with EPA um,
7:30
and helping to um, put together guidance
7:33
documents and things like that,
7:34
reviewing those.
7:36
And I'm currently also chair of the ASDO
7:39
regulatory committee. So, I don't know
7:41
that I necessarily knew that I always
7:43
wanted to do regulatory work. It's just
7:45
that I got put into a position where
7:47
water found me
7:49
>> and it was regulatory and I was good at
7:51
it.
7:52
>> Yes. Yeah.
7:54
>> I I love that. And I think that might be
7:56
a good segue and maybe educating our
7:59
listeners and giving some appreciation
8:01
for just practically speaking how
8:05
regulations work here in the US and the
8:09
important role of you have federal
8:11
regulations and then you have state
8:14
implementation and then there is an art
8:17
and a science
8:18
>> that goes along with taking those and
8:21
interpreting and ultimately ensuring the
8:24
the as much compliance within a state as
8:27
you can achieve and Stacy is a master at
8:29
this like I mean Indiana just
8:30
continuously is a model of good for how
8:34
you implement you know uh new and
8:37
existing regulation. So can you maybe
8:39
educate our listeners Stacy in just how
8:42
regulations
8:44
um flow from federal to state and kind
8:47
of your role in ensuring that they um
8:49
they get implemented.
8:52
>> Okay. So most regulations are put
8:54
together at the federal level. EPA does
8:56
have a process that they um are required
8:58
to follow based on the requirements of
8:59
the Safe Drinking Water Act. Um they put
9:02
contaminants on the contaminant
9:03
candidate list and then they make
9:04
determinations as to whether they need
9:06
to be regulated or a determination that
9:08
they don't need to be regulated. So they
9:11
that's kind of the initial process. They
9:14
there's three things that EPA has to
9:16
consider um in determining if a
9:18
contaminate if a contaminant should be
9:20
regulated. Um, is there an analytical
9:23
method? Is there occurrence data? And
9:25
are there health effects at levels where
9:27
you can analyze and at levels at which
9:28
the contaminant occurs?
9:30
>> Okay.
9:31
>> So, you've got to have health effects.
9:33
You've got to have data and you've got
9:35
to have a way to measure
9:37
>> because obviously you can't regulate
9:38
something if you can't test for it.
9:40
>> Yeah.
9:40
>> I think that's so key.
9:42
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
9:44
>> That is key.
9:46
So, um, the unregulated contaminant
9:48
monitoring rule is the tool that's
9:49
usually used to collect that occurrence
9:51
data. Although sometimes EPA will ask
9:53
for if there's other data out there,
9:56
like is is there data on the specific
9:58
type of contaminant or something that
10:01
they're looking at regulating or and
10:02
sometimes they'll ask for additional
10:04
data. They call them information
10:06
collection rules,
10:07
>> okay?
10:08
>> And they'll just ask for data that's out
10:09
there. Um, some states will also
10:12
regulate certain contaminants based on
10:13
what's found in their state. Um, Indiana
10:16
typically just follows the federal
10:17
rules. So, um, we're not doing any of
10:21
that. Um, but we do have to incorporate
10:23
all the federal rules into the state
10:24
administrative code.
10:25
>> Yeah.
10:26
>> So, basically what we're asking is that
10:28
this the systems
10:31
follow the federal regulations. And you
10:34
know, oftentime for folks that may not
10:36
be super familiar with the process, um,
10:40
and I'm going off script a little, but I
10:42
promise this will be, I think, be a
10:43
softball, an easy question. Um, you
10:46
know, who don't understand the process
10:47
of what it takes to say I have I'm just
10:50
going to use microplastics in my water.
10:53
Yes, you do. But from identifying you
10:56
have microplastics to actually getting
10:58
that to become a regulated contaminant
11:02
can take decades.
11:05
>> And and correct me if I'm wrong, Stacy,
11:06
but I think this whole process that you
11:08
described is not something like, okay,
11:10
in this calendar year we're going to
11:11
study this and then therefore next year
11:14
these are going to now be new, you know,
11:17
contaminants or candidates on SDWA.
11:19
Correct. in your experience like how
11:21
long do you think it takes from hey
11:23
we've identified a new contaminant and
11:25
we believe this is something that needs
11:27
to be regulated do you have an average
11:30
>> you're probably looking 6 to 10 years at
11:33
least um
11:35
>> because the contaminant candidate list I
11:37
want to say it's a five or six year um
11:41
>> time frame on each one of those
11:44
>> and then the unregulated contaminant
11:46
monitoring rule um the fifth one just
11:49
ended. Okay.
11:50
>> Well, is ending is ending this month.
11:52
>> Yes.
11:53
>> Um where systems were testing for PO for
11:56
29 of the POS contaminants and lithium.
11:59
>> And
12:01
so they have not proposed UCMR 6 yet.
12:03
They will propose probably next year and
12:06
finalized the year after that with
12:09
sampling probably,
12:11
>> you know, we're looking at, you know,
12:13
it's a three-year window where all the
12:15
systems do the sampling. So it's it's a
12:18
5year window just to get the data that
12:22
you need.
12:22
>> Yeah.
12:23
>> Which kind of makes sense. There's like
12:25
it's kind of goes back to that that
12:27
thing you were saying where you have to
12:29
identify the process, the analytical
12:31
method, have a study, understand how
12:34
scalable that method is and how
12:35
standardized that can be. Um and then
12:38
>> I mean a lot of these things are going
12:40
on at the same time, but you have to
12:42
have the method before you can test for
12:44
it and you see them on it.
12:45
>> Yeah. and and ultimately potentially
12:48
guidance on on remediation
12:51
um um as well. Um
12:54
>> identifying the best available
12:55
technology.
12:55
>> If you can't remove it then
12:57
>> then
13:00
>> and it becomes just a okay here learn
13:02
about this.
13:03
>> Yeah.
13:04
>> Yeah. And then does that um then at the
13:08
I mean I know you mentioned Indiana um
13:10
you know generally follows federal
13:12
obviously um given your expertise on on
13:15
committees and such you have access to
13:17
uh a lot of what other states you know
13:19
are doing as well. Is uh is that
13:21
timeline the same on like state state
13:23
regulations or would you say states tend
13:26
to be able to move faster when they
13:28
identify particular areas of a concern?
13:32
I think it's I think it really depends
13:34
on the state. I mean, a lot of them a
13:36
lot of them already had had POS
13:38
regulations.
13:39
>> Yeah.
13:40
>> In place before
13:41
>> Yeah.
13:42
>> You know, POS came out. Um Massachusetts
13:45
and California already regulate
13:47
perchlorate.
13:48
>> Yeah.
13:49
>> Um
13:49
>> great point.
13:50
>> Yeah.
13:51
>> Yeah. Yeah.
13:52
>> Some of those some of those upcoming
13:54
>> Yes. Yeah.
13:56
>> changes and uh proposed rules out there.
13:58
So, those are probably the next two
14:00
we're going to see. So,
14:01
>> okay. Not a VPA.
14:03
>> Yeah. So, knowing all of this, what is a
14:07
day in the life of uh of your role?
14:10
Like, what if you could describe what a
14:11
day in the life of your job? What is it?
14:12
What is it like?
14:14
>> So, um my typical day includes working
14:16
with my staff. I have seven of them. Um
14:19
basically to help ensure that all of
14:21
their work is being completed. Um their
14:23
work entails keeping track of all of the
14:25
lead copper rule requirements. um system
14:28
testing for VOCC's, SOC's, IOC's,
14:30
radionuclides,
14:32
>> um nitrate, uh reviewing consumer
14:34
confidence reports, uh stage 2
14:36
disinfection byproducts,
14:38
and all of the surface water treatment
14:40
rules, and then also tracking the POS
14:42
initial monitoring requirements. So,
14:44
we've got a lot of stuff on our plate.
14:46
Um
14:47
and
14:49
you know, attending meetings.
14:51
>> Yeah.
14:51
>> Yep.
14:52
>> Yeah.
14:53
>> Answering people's questions, training
14:55
people. I mean, there's all kinds of
14:57
different things out there that I'm
14:58
doing, but that's I mean, that's
15:00
generally that.
15:01
>> Yeah.
15:01
>> Um,
15:02
>> and sometime sometimes it's bailing me
15:04
out when when you said meetings, it
15:08
brought back the memory of um, you know,
15:11
regulation can be complex. And so,
15:13
there's a number of meetings that we
15:15
were in the same room and and I may have
15:17
been presenting on what's coming with
15:20
lead and copper rule revisions. Um and I
15:22
remember a handful of those um where it
15:24
got heated where you know operators were
15:27
like this this is a this is a big burden
15:29
for us to take on which isn't which is
15:32
true. Um and
15:34
>> um yeah and sometimes it's a little bit
15:37
of therapy letting people air their
15:40
their anger yeah their frustrations and
15:43
>> I after one particular incident you told
15:45
me that I'm really good at taking
15:47
punches and so I took that as a
15:49
compliment. Um, but sometimes it was
15:52
like, "Hey, we have this question. Why
15:54
is this?" And I'd be like, "Stacy's in
15:56
the room." And you'd be like,
15:58
>> "Here's here's what I can answer." And
16:00
you've always been able to articulate
16:02
with a with clarity coming from the
16:04
state. Like, here's how Indiana is going
16:06
to implement this and here's how we're
16:08
thinking about it while still addressing
16:09
the concern and saying this is a big
16:12
deal. Like this is a lot of work.
16:14
>> Yeah.
16:15
Yeah. I want to double click on that
16:17
because I think um you know Stacy is
16:19
being modest with her team because I
16:22
think you bring up a good point and one
16:26
of I think a superpower that you have
16:28
Stacy and the team and that what you've
16:29
developed is you guys have to be ultra
16:33
communicators because all of these
16:35
programs that you describe you have to
16:39
basically incite action and enablement
16:42
across
16:44
potentially 1300 100 systems of varying
16:48
degrees of sophistication across a state
16:51
and we've had a lot of communicators on
16:54
this podcast. You know, Kelly, Chelsea,
16:57
Mike, and you know, we all know that is
17:00
a really, really difficult job.
17:02
communicating something net new and then
17:04
getting driving the action and the
17:07
behavior that you need is is a real kind
17:09
of skill that I think you know uh Stacy
17:12
and team kind of have to have and and
17:15
work with partners like Isaac yourself
17:17
and making sure that whoever whether
17:19
it's them or whoever they're relying on
17:21
to get the message out is is coming from
17:23
a place of strong content one message
17:27
and how are we going to kind of enable a
17:29
state to act on that.
17:30
>> Yeah. And when there's some ambiguity
17:32
like you were talking about the um just
17:35
being on you know was it 2007 the lead
17:38
and copper rule those initial revisions
17:41
and so there's always this like timeline
17:43
of here's what's coming and here's what
17:46
where there's still
17:47
>> some aspects that need to get clarified
17:49
but here's what you need to do now. Um
17:52
and that that was a journey for all of
17:54
us the um from 2021 to uh 2024 kind of
17:59
living in a little bit of it of
18:01
ambiguity and and delivering
18:03
>> which part of what rule are we doing and
18:05
yeah
18:07
>> yeah sorry PTSD
18:09
>> PTSD I know we were at a we were at a
18:11
conference and someone just started
18:12
calling it LCR2.0 and I'm like I like
18:16
that just whatever LCR2.0 Let's just
18:20
throw away what we know and just yeah
18:22
call it the 2.0. So actually I like
18:24
that. Isaac Stacy, would you mind
18:26
unpacking a little bit how the the
18:28
regulatory landscape has changed? I mean
18:31
obviously Isaac and I are newer to it,
18:34
you know, and obviously the lead and
18:36
copper rule is is very kind of our entry
18:38
point into it, but you have so much
18:40
background. How has how has the
18:42
regulatory landscape changed since you
18:44
entered the the space?
18:47
So when I first started um community,
18:49
this was 1992.
18:52
So um community water systems were
18:55
testing for total colform and VOCC
18:58
radionuclides and if they disinfected
19:00
TTHMs, total trialmethanes. Um non-
19:03
community water systems were testing for
19:05
total colform.
19:06
>> That's it.
19:07
>> That's Yeah.
19:08
>> In 1992,
19:09
>> pretty much it.
19:10
>> Wow.
19:10
>> Um
19:11
>> Wow. So in 1992 1993 they a whole bunch
19:15
of new rules came out. We got all what
19:17
the whole new suite of everything. Um so
19:20
we h now added um nitrates um SOC's
19:24
additional VOCC's. So collectively those
19:26
SOC's and VOCC's beca were the phase 2
19:29
2B and five rules
19:31
um that came out of EPA um lead copper
19:34
and surface water treatment rule. This
19:36
was in the
19:38
era after the 1986 amendments. to the to
19:41
the safe drinking water act
19:43
>> where it was basically you shall
19:45
regulate at least 23 new contaminants
19:47
every 3 years period.
19:49
>> Oh wow.
19:50
>> Oh that's an interesting
19:51
>> that and then that changed in the 1996
19:53
amendments to the contaminant candidate
19:56
list and using UCMR and stuff like that.
19:58
So
20:00
>> think of how many more contaminants we
20:02
would have if we had 23 every 3 years
20:04
since 1993. Who came up with that?
20:08
You need you need to you need to
20:10
highlight that and say here's what it
20:11
could have been if this never changed.
20:13
>> I know. I'm Oh my gosh.
20:15
>> So, um then but then we added revisions
20:17
to the radonuclides rule, revisions to
20:20
the arsenic rule, um updated the
20:23
disinfection byproducts rules to lower
20:25
the MCL for TTHMs and added an MCL for
20:27
halo acetic acids.
20:29
>> Wow.
20:29
>> Um we updated the requirements for
20:31
surface water treatment to better
20:33
protect against cryptosperidium after an
20:35
outbreak in Milwaukee. Um there were
20:37
improvements to the lead and copper rule
20:39
and then even more improvements to the
20:41
lead and copper rule um based on what
20:42
happened in Flint and other places
20:44
around the country. And yeah, it's going
20:47
to be ever evolving.
20:48
>> Ever evolving. Yeah.
20:49
>> Ever evolving. Yes.
20:51
>> Yeah. Oh my gosh. Do you um are there
20:53
any of those that were particularly more
20:58
challenging than others to to implement?
21:01
Um the lead and copper has always been
21:04
the most confusing rule to implement.
21:06
There's all there's just so many
21:08
different things. Um it's relatively
21:10
straightforward if you're a small or
21:12
mediumsiz system and you've never had an
21:13
action level exceedence.
21:15
>> Mhm. Yeah.
21:15
>> Especially if you don't have any lead
21:17
service lines.
21:17
>> Yep.
21:19
>> You're going to you're I mean even after
21:21
LCRI goes into effect, they're still
21:23
going to be doing basically the same
21:24
thing that they were doing in 1993.
21:27
>> It's a great point. Yep. Sampling. um
21:30
you know they might they might be
21:32
revising sampling sites. They're just
21:34
going to call it a different tier
21:36
>> because the tier classification's
21:38
changed.
21:39
>> Um but for any system that's had an
21:41
action level exceedence that has lead
21:43
service lines, has galvanized lines
21:44
requiring replacement, there's just
21:46
going to be so many more things that are
21:47
going to have to come up
21:48
>> and just trying to figure out how to
21:50
implement that. Mhm.
21:51
>> Um I remember when the propos when the
21:55
LCR came out and they were looking at
22:00
you know you've got LCR and the
22:02
requirement with you had the action
22:05
level and the trigger level and
22:07
>> there were just so many different
22:08
numbers and
22:11
>> when they were working on LCRI that was
22:14
just that was my point to EPA all the
22:16
time. It's like we cannot implement this
22:18
with two different numbers in there.
22:20
give us one number,
22:21
>> right?
22:21
>> So, they lowered the MCA, they lowered
22:23
the action level, but at least they got
22:25
rid of that trigger level. So,
22:28
>> um and I remember being in the um EPA's
22:34
>> basically their briefing with the states
22:38
and Asda um after that rule came out and
22:42
having EPA actually mention me by name.
22:44
>> Oh my gosh.
22:46
>> Yes, Stacy, we've got one number. So
22:48
yeah, that was
22:49
>> Yeah. No, that was that was so important
22:52
because I think and that's back to
22:54
Megan's point about um you know the
22:57
superpower of communication ultimately
22:59
bringing clarity to it was
23:02
>> was really important and I'm kind of
23:04
curious too
23:06
>> um
23:08
in of all the different things from from
23:12
your perspective if you're thinking
23:13
about water utilities like we definitely
23:16
know lead and copper is complex to
23:19
implement for utility. Um
23:22
>> is that are there other contaminants or
23:25
things that they are regulating that
23:27
have that level of complexity or is that
23:29
kind of a standout um one or um which
23:32
other ones? Uh
23:34
>> that that one's def copper is definitely
23:37
the most complicated.
23:38
>> Interesting. Um, but yeah, there's
23:43
the the POS stuff is going to be
23:45
interesting interpreting the initial
23:47
monitoring results and trying to
23:49
determine what compliance monitoring is
23:50
going to look like.
23:52
>> Um, because it, you know, it all depends
23:55
on even for systems that don't have
23:57
detections, it depends on what levels
24:00
the lab is
24:01
>> Yes, that's right. using because if the
24:04
lab's not actually detecting to half of
24:07
that number,
24:10
>> then the systems are still going to have
24:12
to do quarterly monitoring when when
24:14
compliance monitoring starts. And yeah,
24:18
it's so that one's going to be just kind
24:21
of keeping track of who's got to do what
24:22
when.
24:24
But Len Copper definitely has the most
24:26
moving pieces.
24:27
>> Yeah. And you bring up such a good point
24:29
about your role as that intermediary
24:33
also between the EPA and the in the
24:37
states and that there is a feedback
24:39
loop. It's not just here are these
24:42
things we're going to cram cram down. I
24:44
mean like you are instrumental. you and
24:46
your colleagues are instrumental at hey
24:49
no this is the practical feedback that
24:51
we need to send back up to the EPA and
24:53
to your point and sometimes you know
24:55
things get changed because of it right
24:57
and sometimes they don't
25:01
and sometimes they stay gray right and
25:04
you kind of have to call the ball on
25:06
certain things uh keep me accountable
25:08
and you know if I'm out of turn speaking
25:10
you know like that but um but I think
25:12
that is also such an important role not
25:15
only what you do for your state, but
25:16
what you do with the EPA to make sure
25:18
what we're actually implementing as a
25:20
community is is practical, it's
25:22
reasonable, and you know, where does
25:25
affordability in your mind kind of come
25:27
into play with all of these regulations?
25:31
>> I mean, we EPA does all the infor
25:35
affordability piece of it.
25:36
>> Yeah.
25:37
um we don't have staff available to do
25:42
those same
25:44
basically background checks that that
25:47
EPA does when they're doing rules to try
25:51
to you know provide. I mean we we have
25:53
done some of the yeah those numbers
25:56
don't seem right a little bit what on
25:59
when EPA comes out with proposed rules.
26:01
>> Yeah. Um but like when we're putting the
26:04
rules into the state rule format and
26:06
going through the state rule making
26:08
process
26:09
>> um you know basically what we're going
26:11
with is there is no net
26:14
>> cost to the system of having a state
26:18
regulation because they already have to
26:20
comply with the federal.
26:21
>> Got it. Okay, that makes sense. Yeah,
26:24
that makes sense.
26:25
>> Oh my gosh. So so many moving so many
26:28
moving pieces. Um,
26:30
>> yeah. And then I mean I think that kind
26:32
of lead to like where do where are the
26:35
pieces going to move next? Like when you
26:37
look at the next 10 years, what do you
26:40
think it's going to look like for water
26:41
administrators?
26:44
>> Um, we'll likely be trying to do more um
26:46
with the same resources we currently
26:49
have. Um,
26:52
there are so many more changes coming
26:54
out there in the federal regulatory
26:55
landscape. um full implementation of
26:58
LCRI, the consumer confidence reports,
27:01
um whatever the PAS rules end up looking
27:03
like after the revisions that EPA is
27:06
proposing to make. Um the perchlorate
27:09
rule, which the proposed rule should be
27:10
out January 2nd, I think was the court
27:14
ordered deadline on that. Um and then
27:17
microbial disinfection byproducts are up
27:19
after that. Um we've got they're still
27:22
working on the finalized version
27:26
of the um water system restructuring
27:28
rule. So, all of these new federal
27:30
regulations are going to be coming out
27:32
within the next 10 years. Um these are
27:34
just ones we know of. There might be
27:35
more things that'll come out also.
27:38
>> Um but they're all going to require um
27:40
implementation. So, the challenge isn't
27:42
unique to administrators though. It's
27:44
going to be really challenging to the
27:45
regulated community as well.
27:47
>> Yeah.
27:48
>> Yeah. Um so thinking about you know
27:50
ahead in in those challenges um you know
27:54
what does the what would you say to
27:56
folks that are maybe interested in in
27:59
joining the water community and and
28:01
think huh I I would like to learn more
28:03
about you know this partic you know
28:05
joining on the regulatory side because
28:07
my guess is we probably need a pipeline
28:09
of of great talent to to join you and
28:11
your team. Maybe not but my assumption
28:13
is we probably do. um what what advice
28:16
would you have for young professionals
28:18
to uh who might be considering a career
28:21
in and what's a pitch to to join your
28:24
field?
28:24
>> So, if you're looking for a way to
28:26
protect human health in the environment,
28:27
working as a state regulator can be a
28:29
really good good role for you. Um
28:31
there's many different regulatory roles
28:32
out there. We have inspectors, um
28:34
compliance staff, um people who help
28:37
focus on water system capacity,
28:39
>> which is that's interesting, uh
28:41
financial, managerial, and technical
28:43
capacity. Um we have people who focus on
28:47
water system security. Um people ensure
28:49
that the operators running the treatment
28:51
plants are properly trained and
28:52
certified. Um permit engineers and many
28:55
others. So that and that's just within
28:56
drinking water. And there's so
28:59
>> um in addition helping to get funding
29:01
out to water systems for needed
29:02
improvements is also an important role.
29:04
Um in Indiana that function is housed
29:06
within the Indiana Finance Authority
29:07
which is a different agency but in many
29:10
states it's also part of the drinking
29:11
water program.
29:12
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, lots of lots of
29:15
different ways that you could even
29:17
explore and and and what it seems to me
29:19
too is um once you you get in the
29:22
opportunities to maybe cross-pollinate
29:24
some of these areas I I you know are
29:26
kind of endless if you if you if you can
29:29
really get in and um and have an open
29:31
mind to to where it could take you.
29:33
>> Yeah.
29:34
>> Yeah. Yeah. Understanding where where
29:36
your talent can have an impact is such a
29:38
such an important um piece for young
29:41
professionals. um to kind of say, "Hey,
29:44
here's my skill set. I do care about
29:46
protecting um public health um and uh
29:51
what role what roles are there for me?"
29:52
And so um I know
29:54
>> Yeah, I think um yeah, I think you've
29:56
you've blazed a trail kind of kind of
30:00
showing like it evolves and it's not
30:03
just like having an impact in your
30:04
state, but also being able to advocate
30:06
for um and shape and help evolve federal
30:10
policy. Um and just that relationship
30:12
between federal state systems and the
30:15
public um is just um really critical.
30:18
>> Yeah. Yeah. And I just, you know, and it
30:20
it's just I I just you want to thank you
30:22
Stacy for being such a great sounding
30:24
board and um kind of inspiration. You
30:28
the the way you've helped kind of 120
30:30
and myself and others on the team
30:32
navigate this and in a way that we can
30:34
understand and then build practical
30:36
solutions. You've been such a you know
30:38
wonderful mentor. So, I'm curious who
30:40
inspires you. You inspire me. Who
30:42
inspires you?
30:45
>> Many of the people that I've worked with
30:47
at EPA throughout the years um inspire
30:49
me, but I was especially inspired during
30:50
my early days working with lead and
30:52
copper by our region five lead and
30:54
copper specialist uh Miguel Miguel
30:56
>> Del Toral.
30:57
>> And um he was always very approachable
31:00
and helped me to learn so much about the
31:02
rule, but he was also instrumental in
31:04
the early EPA oversight in Flint.
31:07
So, yeah, he's been involved through all
31:08
of that process. And I actually have a
31:11
section of lead pipe that he sent to me
31:13
that came from his yard in Chicago when
31:16
he they were re they were had torn down
31:19
the original house that was the building
31:21
that was on the property and were
31:22
building a new house on it. And as they
31:25
were excavating, they found a section of
31:27
lead pipe and he actually sent me a
31:28
section of lead pipe from his yard. So,
31:30
>> oh my gosh,
31:33
>> there's there's few people that
31:34
appreciate that gift, but I but we
31:37
totally get it.
31:38
>> We've totally entered water nerve water.
31:42
I have a section pipe from EPA region 5
31:46
administrator his yard.
31:48
>> Yeah, you know it's a good podcast when
31:49
you've officially gone there. That's
31:51
amazing.
31:53
Well, Stacy, it has been an absolute
31:55
pleasure to have you on the show today.
31:58
And if there are folks um that would uh
32:00
love to learn more from you um uh where
32:03
can they find you?
32:05
>> Um they can find me on uh
32:10
>> LinkedIn.
32:11
>> Yeah, I was going to say you're very
32:12
Yeah,
32:12
>> they can find me on LinkedIn. Um good.
32:15
>> You can probably go ahead and tag me.
32:17
>> Yes, we will.
32:18
>> Yeah.
32:18
>> Yeah, we'll we'll tag you. And um yeah,
32:20
appreciate I think um I I continuously
32:23
learn a lot and uh and appreciate the
32:25
time and uh thanks for all you do for uh
32:28
our industry and um uh me personally and
32:31
120 Water. It's
32:32
>> so great to have you Stacy.
32:35
>> Thanks
32:37
>> Isaac. It was great to talk to Stacy. I
32:40
um you know, I loved having her on the
32:43
podcast because I I do feel like not a
32:45
lot of people understand, at least I
32:48
certainly didn't before I got into
32:50
water, all of the the nuances of what
32:53
does it take to make water policy and
32:55
then how does that policy go from
32:59
federal government to state government?
33:01
And I think we just learned today that
33:03
there is a secret sauce.
33:05
>> There are whisperers like Stacy. Yeah.
33:08
that are literally negotiating up and
33:10
down the value chain and just really
33:13
trying to do their best to implement
33:15
something so that all of the systems in
33:17
their community can make better water.
33:20
>> Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. I felt
33:22
like it was a good um good way of making
33:24
it accessible. Kind of remind me of like
33:26
a schoolhouse rock version of water
33:29
policy and and how all this comes
33:31
together. And and I think Stacy just um
33:34
yeah, she she does a great job of um
33:38
communicating at least every time I see
33:40
her in the state of Indiana talking
33:42
about what's coming down, but you also
33:44
just learn how this how these things
33:47
evolve. Um that's a great point.
33:49
>> We we talk about rules that we need
33:52
>> or ways that we need to protect water
33:54
quality and we absolutely need that. We
33:57
also need to know how we're going to
33:59
measure it, how we're going to
34:00
remediate, and that, you know, just kind
34:02
of peeling back some of the layers of
34:04
like this is why it doesn't happen
34:07
overnight.
34:07
>> That's right.
34:08
>> Um there is a process to it, and there
34:10
are people who lead the process. Um and
34:12
Stacy is such a great example of that.
34:14
>> That's a great point
34:15
>> and we really hope that you were able to
34:17
glean so much insight from Stacy and the
34:20
conversation that we had here. Um,
34:22
please if you enjoyed this episode,
34:24
like, subscribe, share, and we can't
34:27
wait to have you join us next time on
34:29
the Make Waterwork Podcast. Thanks for
34:32
listening to the Make Waterwork Podcast.
34:34
If you enjoyed today's episode, please
34:36
take a moment to like, share, and
34:38
subscribe so you never miss a
34:40
conversation. We'd love to hear your
34:43
thoughts and questions. Connect with us
34:45
on LinkedIn, or send us a message.
34:47
Together, we can make water work for
34:49
everyone.