In This Lecture, I Am Going to Show One Example of a Sustainability

MIT CEE 1.011 – Project Evaluation Spring Term 2003

In this lecture, I am going to show one example of a Sustainability Assessment method, “7 Questions,” developed in the North American mining and minerals sector, then apply “7 Questions” to the Orange County Groundwater Replenishment System case. So… what methodology to choose now???

Mining

Based on current mineral consumption, each North American will require over a Mining, Minerals & Sustainable Development lifetime about 800 pounds of lead North America and zinc, 1,500 pounds of copper, 3,600 pounds of www.iisd.org/mmsd aluminum, 14 tons of clays and salt, 16 tons of iron and over 600 tons of stone, sand, gravel and World Business Council for Sustainable cement. Development Natural Resources Canada: 1995 Source: Alistair MacDonald. Industry in Transition Regional Partner: International Institute for – A Profile of the North American Mining Sector. www.iisd.org/mmsd Sustainable Development Source: UN ESCAP http://www.unescap.org/enrd/water_mineral/mrslegal.htm

Chair, R. Anthony Hodge, PEng

Task 7 Questions to Sustainability

To develop a set of practical principles, criteria, and/or indicators that could be used to guide or test individual mining 1. Engagement operations, existing or proposed, in terms of their compatibility 2. People with concepts of sustainability; and to suggest approaches or 7. Overall Integrated strategies for effectively implementing such a test/guideline Evaluation

*** Sustainability 3. Environment Assessment This process led to the design of an assessment framework: 6. Institutional Arrangements & “Seven Questions to Sustainability” Governance 4. Economy

5. Traditions & Non- MMSD-NA Task 2 Group. www.iisd.org/mmsd Market Activities Source: MMSD NA Working Group 2

Susan Murcott, Lecturer 1 MIT CEE 1.011 – Project Evaluation Spring Term 2003

Sustainable Development Assessment Methodology QUESTION 1: ENGAGEMENT “7 Questions” For each of 7 key themes, a question is posed. Are engagement processes in place and An “ideal” answer is offered working effectively?”

Then a hierarchy of objectives, indicators and z Stakeholders? specific measurements are suggested z Informed voluntary consent? The initial motivating question leads to z Reporting and verification mechanisms? progressively more detailed elements. This methodology can be tailored to the specific z Dispute resolution mechanisms? infrastructure sector project(s) and/or site specific conditions.

QUESTION 2: PEOPLE QUESTION 3: ENVIRONMENT

Will people’s well-being be maintained or Is the integrity of the environment improved? assured over the long term? z This question addresses the effects of the infrastructure project construction or operation on z This question addresses the people’s well-being and on their communities. infrastructure project’s effect on z Required data builds on traditional socio- ecosystem well-being economic impact assessment work as well as worker health and community population and health studies.

QUESTION 5: TRADITIONAL QUESTION 4: ECONOMY AND NON-MARKET ACTIVITIES

Is the economic viability of the infrastructure Are traditional and non-market activities in project or operation assured and will the the community and surrounding area community and broader economy be better off accounted for in a way that is acceptable to as a result? local people? z This question addresses the viability and success z This question addresses the economic condition of of non-market activities such as cultural, the proponents/owners/funders of the project and recreational, indigenous, bartering and volunteer their relationship to adjacent communities and the activities that are typically omitted from economic larger economy. studies.

Susan Murcott, Lecturer 2 MIT CEE 1.011 – Project Evaluation Spring Term 2003

QUESTION 6: QUESTION 7: OVERALL INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT AND GOVERNANCE AND CONTINUOUS LEARNING Are laws, regulations, programs, capacities Considering the whole, will the net result in place to address infrastructure project be positive or negative? construction or operational consequences? In the short and long term? z Capacity to address construction and operational consequences? Will there be periodic assessment? z Efficiency and effectiveness of laws, Are there mechanisms for continuous voluntary programs, market incentives and learning and improvement? cultural norms

Alberta Genuine Progress Indicators IISD’s Dashboard Project • 51 economic, social & environmental • 46 indicators for over 100 countries indicators (http://www.iisd.org/orgsd) (http://www.pembina.org/green/gpi)

Fraser Basin Council Sustainability Indicators: • 40 indicators being developed ranging from water consumption to newspaper circulation rates to crime rates to GHG’s…

Applying “7 Questions” Methodology to the Groundwater Replenishment System Q1: ENGAGEMENT?

Orange County Water District & Orange County Sanitation District Orange County, California

Susan Murcott, Lecturer 3 MIT CEE 1.011 – Project Evaluation Spring Term 2003

Broad-based Community Support Community Clubs

Environmental Groups: Health/Science and Education: Anaheim Evening Lions Kiwanis of Cypress Blue Planet Foundation Anaheim Memorial Medical Center Anaheim Hi-12 Kiwanis of Tustin Groundwater Foundation Anaheim Union High School District Anaheim Host Lions League of Women Voters of OC Mono Lake Committee Chapman University, Dept. of Phys Sciences Anaheim Optimists Lido Isle Community Assoc. OC Audubon Society Discovery Science Center Brea Noon Lions Los Amigos of OC Orange Coast Watch Fountain Valley Historical Society Brea Republican Women Federated Newport Harbor Exchange Club Orange County CoastKeeper Fountain Valley School District Costa Mesa-Orange Coast Breakfast North County Sertoma Club Sierra Club of OC Garden Grove Historical Society Lions Orange County Chapter of AARP Sisters of St. Joseph Honoring Women & Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Fountain Valley Woman’s Club Orange Empire Sertoma Creation Huntington Beach City School District Fullerton Host Lions Club Retired Oil Men’s Club Surfrider Foundation of Huntington National Water Research Institute Garden Grove Evening Kiwanis Rotary Clubs of Fullerton and Santa Beach/LB Chapter Newport Bay Hospital Garden Grove Host Lions Club Ana North North Orange County United Teachers Garden Grove Republican Women Sertoma Club of Anaheim Orange County City Engineer’s Association Federated Soroptimist International of Buena Park Santa Ana Unified School District Hispanic Business Women Assoc. Stanton Lions Savanna School District Huntington View Garden Club Sunrise Exchange Club Sandra Smoley, R.N., Former Agency Secretary, Izaak Walton League Tustin Area Republican Women California Health and Welfare Agency Kansas Club of Seal Beach/Leisure Society of Women Engineers World

Business Supporters Cities, Government, & Water Agencies - Baywood Development Group - Orange County Taxpayers Assoc. Cities: - Business Industry Assoc., OC - Parsons Infrastructure & Tech. Group Anaheim Cypress La Palma Santa Monica Westminster - Centex Homes - Rainbow Disposal Beverly Hills Fountain Valley Los Alamitos Seal Beach - Downtown Santa Ana Business Assoc. - Ramirez International Brea Fullerton Newport Beach Stanton - Hall & Foreman, Inc. - R.J. Medrano & Associates Buena Park Huntington Beach Placentia Torrance - Hearthside Homes - The Robert Mayer Corporation Burbank Irvine San Fernando Tustin - John Laing Homes - Trammell Crow Company Costa Mesa La Habra Santa Ana Villa Park - Orange County Business Council - William Lyon Homes, Inc. - WNC & Associates Government: Chambers of Commerce: Senator Dianne Feinstein Former Illinois Senator Paul Simon Newport Harbor Greater Anaheim Congressman Christopher Cox Assemblyman John Campbell Brea Orange Congressman Edward Royce Assemblyman Lou Correa Costa Mesa Placentia Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez Assemblyman Tom Harman Filipino Santa Ana Fullerton Stanton Former Congressman Ron Packard Orange County Board of Supervisors Garden Grove Tustin State Senator Dick Ackerman Orange County Farm Bureau Hispanic Vietnamese State Senator Ross Johnson Irvine West O.C. Legislative Los Alamitos Yorba Linda Plus 34 Southern California water agencies & associations

Our Supporters Are People -- Fathers, Mothers & Grandparents Too -- Some You May Know GWR System Endorsement List

• Dr. Harvey Collins, former Chief, • Bobby McDonald, President, Black 34: Water Agencies and Associations California Department of Health Chamber of Commerce Services, Drinking Water Branch • Theresa Arzate, President, Hispanic •• American Water Works Association • Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator (AWWA)(AWWA) •• Metropolitan Water District of Southern Business Women Association California • Loretta Sanchez, U.S. •• American Water Works Association/Cal- • Sister Sharon Fritsch, Sisters of St. Nev Section (AWWA) •• Moulton Niguel Water District Congresswoman Joseph of Orange •• California-American Water Company •• Municipal Water District of Orange County • Lou Correa, California • Orange County Sanitation District • Ross Johnson, California Senator •• California Association of Sanitation • Orange County Sanitation District Assemblyman Agencies •• Orange County Water District • Dr. Jack Skinner, M.D. and • John Campbell, California •• California Water Environment •• PasadenaPasadena WaterWater andand PowerPower Association Environmentalist Assemblyman •• SantaSanta AnaAna WatershedWatershed ProjectProject AuthorityAuthority •• Central Basin Municipal Water District • Reed Royalty, President, Orange • Don Schultz, Surfriders Foundation •• SerranoSerrano WaterWater DistrictDistrict •• Compton Municipal Services Water County Taxpayers Association • Bob Seat, President, Orange County Department •• SouthernSouthern CaliforniaCalifornia AllianceAlliance ofof PubliclyPublicly OwnedOwned TreatmentTreatment WorksWorks • Dr. Henry Vaux, Professor, Farm Bureau •• Costa Mesa Sanitary District •• SouthernSouthern CaliforniaCalifornia WaterWater AllianceAlliance Environmental Science, •• EastEast OrangeOrange CountyCounty WaterWater DistrictDistrict • Michael Stephens, Hoag Memorial •• SouthernSouthern CaliforniaCalifornia WaterWater CommitteeCommittee University of California •• EasternEastern MunicipalMunicipal WaterWater DistrictDistrict Hospital •• SouthernSouthern CaliforniaCalifornia WaterWater CompanyCompany • Susan Seacrest, President, The •• FoothillFoothill MunicipalMunicipal WaterWater DistrictDistrict • Chip Prather, President, Orange •• ThreeThree ValleysValleys MunicipalMunicipal WaterWater DistrictDistrict Groundwater Foundation •• Glendale Water & Power County Fire Chiefs Association •• Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water • Stephanie Pacheco, Sierra Club •• InlandInland EmpireEmpire UtilitiesUtilities AgencyAgency District • Van Thai Tran, Mayor Pro • Manuel J. Ramirez, President/CEO, •• LasLas VirgenesVirgenes MunicipalMunicipal WaterWater DistrictDistrict •• West Basin Municipal Water District Tempore, City of Garden Grove Ramirez International •• LongLong BeachBeach WaterWater DepartmentDepartment •• Western Municipal Water District • Joan Irvine Smith •• LosLos AngelesAngeles DepartmentDepartment ofof WaterWater andand •• Yorba Linda Water District PowerPower (LADWP)(LADWP) •• Mesa Consolidated Water District

Susan Murcott, Lecturer 4 MIT CEE 1.011 – Project Evaluation Spring Term 2003

Does GWR benefit the people of Orange County?

Q2: People? • Population growth in Orange County means more water is needed. GWR provides this. • GWR enhances local control of water by reducing dependence on imported water • But… will GWR mitigate against future water shortages or simply fend off the day of reckoning?

Water Quality and Public Health

Public Opinion is Favorable Total Dissolved • 6 years of full-scale system testing Solids showed no viruses, bacteria, protozoa regarding GWR System mg/l or other significant contaminants 700 600 made it through the design system. 500 400 • Water Quality Study by several outside 300 PhDs & water experts including a Voter Input in 1997 200 100 review by health agencies confirmed 0 60% believe don't have enough water for future SWP SAR that water is safe. 60% say reclaiming is a good way to go • Water quality continually monitored by Total Organic people and computers at multiple sites Compounds • Project will have oversight by Dept. of mg/l Health Services, Environmental Voter Input in 2002 6 5 Protection Agency, Regional Water 73% believe future water will be a serious problemroblem 4 Quality Control Board. 3 87% support water reclamation 2 • But… some people are worried about 1 0 endrocrine disruptors, SWP SAR pharmaceuticals and other unknowns

Does GWR benefit the environment? Q3: ENVIRONMENT? • Reverse hardness/salinity levels in groundwater basin? • Prevent seawater intrusion into aquifer? • Use less energy than pumping imported water from Northern California?

Susan Murcott, Lecturer 5 MIT CEE 1.011 – Project Evaluation Spring Term 2003

Groundwater Increasing in Hardness Prevent Seawater Intrusion and Salinity • Groundwater basin is • Santa Ana & Colorado Rivers connected to ocean bring minerals into groundwater basin— creates • Since 1975, OCWD has hard, saline water. been purifying small amounts of wastewater to • Each year, more minerals go drinking water quality & into the basin than come out— injecting into the ground. about 62,000 tons every year • Each year, Orange County – Aiming for a drinking water goal of 500 mg/L for minerals uses more groundwater. Therefore, even if they • Groundwater Replenishment didn’t do the GWR system, System will produce “ultra- they MUST increase pure” water that will start to amount of water injected reverse salinity and mineral from 17,000 af/yr to 45,000 buildup in appliances and af/yr in order to prevent plumbing fixtures seawater intrusion.

Reduced Energy Use from Reduced Pumping Q4: Economy? • By offsetting a Q4: Economy? portion of the State Water pumping costs, GWR project saves energy. • 50% less energy (140 M kWh/yr savings)

GWR Reduces Water to Ocean Infrastructure Needs and Saves Money • By highly purifying the wastewater, GWR reduces discharge to ocean & saves $170 million that would have been spent on new The OCSD must either build a new, expensive outfall pipe. ocean outfall to discharge treated wastewater to the ocean or treat the wastewater to an even • Instead, that higher level and reuse it for groundwater recharge money will be invested in GWR

Susan Murcott, Lecturer 6 MIT CEE 1.011 – Project Evaluation Spring Term 2003

State and Federal Grants = Subsidy GWR -- Capital Cost • OCWD/OCSD received $100 million in October State & Federal Grants for GWR 2002 • Reduces $450M capital cost -> $350M Advanced Water Treatment Facility $ 228.3 M • Costs shared 50/50 by water and Conveyance Pipelines 75.2 M wastewater agencies Barrier Well & Pipeline 17.7 M Administrative Costs 54.7 M TOTAL $ 453.9 M

Projected Annual Residential EIR Alternatives to GWR User Fee (OCSD sanitation costs only)

• Seawater barrier only project $220 – 35,000 af /yr (seawater barrier) vs. 72,000 af /yr – $164 M vs. $450 M (GWR) $180 – Federal and State grants at risk Fee with GWR System Fee Outfall and per • New outfall $140 No GWR System Year – $170 M (outfall) vs. $450 M (GWR) No GWR System – Longer implementation schedule $100 No Outfall • Do nothing (not an option because seawater intrusion from over-pumping cannot be ignored) $60 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Year

Traditional and Non-Market Activities Q5: Traditional and • Recreational activities on OCWD/OCSD river Non-Market Activities? trails for walking, jogging, biking, horseback riding • Sport fishing of stocked fish in several recharge basins (artificial lakes created from sand/gravel pits after mine closures). • 100 species of wildlife found on OCWD/OCSD land.

Susan Murcott, Lecturer 7 MIT CEE 1.011 – Project Evaluation Spring Term 2003

Q6: Institutional Basic Terms

Arrangements and • 35-year term Governance? • Phase I facilities only • OCWD gets 72,000 af/yr water supply • OCSD gets 100 mgd of Peak Flow Relief – Wet weather events – Emergency treatment and maintenance

Governance of Planning, Design & Rules Behind the Agreement Construction

• Joint Coordination Committee (JCC) oversees 1. OCSD must achieve effluent flow relief construction. 2. OCWD must achieve a new water source – Acquisition of land and permits 3. “Fence line” standard: OCSD treats sewage, OCWD recycles – Preparation of plans and specs, contract documents water • OCWD Board approves budget and 4. Assign cost to agency receiving benefit most contracts 5. Provide incentives for cooperative problem solving • OCSD Board approves budget and 6. Remember that the 2 agencies are essentially co-terminus and largest contracts interdependent partners. • OCWD Board governs O&M of system facilities 7. Continue to rely on time-tested institutional arrangements • JCC meets annually to review and assess system operations

Q7: Synthesis and What Critics Have Said About Cost “It is a piece of gigantic folly that will cost Continuous Learning? taxpayers fifty million dollars, or more, increasing their taxes three times the present rate.”

— Evening News, June 8, 1907 (Regarding(Regarding thethe L.A.L.A. Aqueduct)Aqueduct)

Susan Murcott, Lecturer 8 MIT CEE 1.011 – Project Evaluation Spring Term 2003

What Critics Have Said About Need What Critics Have Said About Quality for Project “ No one I talked to “Government itself deliberately poisoning inin OrangeOrange CountyCounty the entire water supply ever thought of the whole population.” they’dthey’d livelive toto seesee thethe needneed forfor thethe water...” — Lee Martin, MWD (reminiscing(reminiscing about Colorado River Aqueduct) — Herald,, AugustAugust 20,20, 19141914 c.1920 - Orange County Pipeline Construction (Regarding(Regarding L.A.L.A. Aqueduct)Aqueduct)

What Critics Have Said About Governance What Critics Have Said About Governance “Perhaps the best way to understand this & Management Responsibility [GWR] project is to look at it from the “If voters go ahead, they are taking a perspective of the future – not the present. desperate plunge into the unknown and Think of how future generations will look authorizing a blank check to back on this moment of time. When we look irresponsibility.”irresponsibility.” back at the LA aqueduct and the Colorado River Aqueduct, we describe them as visionary and extraordinary. I’m certain this project will be viewed in that same — San Francisco Chronicle,, October 29, 1960 way.” — OCWD Director, Jan Flory (Regarding(Regarding StateState WaterWater Project)Project) October 16, 2002

Summary of “7 Questions” Applied to GWR Case Study 4/10/03 email from Phil Anthony, Chair, Joint Cooperative Committee, • “7 Questions” enables us to identify and support many dimensions of sustainability. Groundwater Replenishment System – Stakeholder participation – Increased well-being in terms of provision of a certain quality and quantity of water – Recoginzing the limits of imported water, takes a first step towards local sufficiency by trying to work from within constaints of local groundwater resources. – In terms of the alternatives presented, makes logical choices towards protecting the environment, meeting human needs, energy conservation, economically sensible choices.

Susan Murcott, Lecturer 9 MIT CEE 1.011 – Project Evaluation Spring Term 2003

Limitations of “7 Questions” Strengths of “7 Questions” Sustainable Sustainability Assessment Methodology Assessment Methodology • Complexity of issues might • Puts the “triple bottom line” at the center. overwhelm the participants and simple answers might become • Takes a “soft systems” as opposed to a the default decision. “hard systems” approach recognizing that • Can miss the forest for the trees. sustainability issues cannot be resolved in (e.g. target many “small” an expert-driven or solely quantitative way. sustainabilities at the expense of • Is specifically intended NOT to rank “big picture” sustainability. different elements and sum up the bottom • “Soft” approach may be line, hence an “open” approach. scientifically or legally challenged.

How do engineers contribute towards long-term sustainability? Acknowledgements

•Anthony Hodge, P.E.,. Co-facilitator environment of MMSD Task 2 Work Group

•Rob Dies, MIT M.Eng ’03

•Blake Anderson, Exec. Director, society Orange County Sanitation District

•Ron Wildermuth, Public Information Officer, Orange County Water District economy

Susan Murcott, Lecturer 10