stakeholder/public attitudes towards reuse of treated ... documents/reports... · towards reuse of...

Public Acceptance of Reusing Treated Wastewater

Prepared for: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation

Prepared by: Ogilvie, Ogilvie & Company

Date: March 31, 2010

Stakeholder/Public Attitudes towards Reuse of Treated Wastewater

Final Report

Robb Ogilvie, Managing PartnerLynette Ogilvie, Partner

Jim Asher, Partner, DataShepherd

ASSOciAteS & AffiLiAteS

Bala Araniyasundaran P.Eng., PMPJohn Cary, Facilitator/Forester

Peter Courchesne, PhotographerDr. Jack Donnan, Environmental Economist

Cheryl Hamilton, Writer and EditorDr. Isobel Heathcote, Environmental

Sciences and EngineeringTara Hingco, Graphic Design/Writer

Pamela Hubbard, Planner and FacilitatorHolly Huehn, Urban Planner

& Project CoordinatorMelissa Hirst, Website Management

Fred Johnson, Environmental ConsultantOksana Kulczycky, Graphic Designer

Ron Kervin, Facilitator & Project CoordinatorTim Lotimer, Hydrogeologist and Geoscientist

Dr. Jim Maclean, Environmental PolicyGord Rodgers, Planner & Facilitator

Oksana Ruczenczyn, Graphic Designer Mark Setter, Landscape Architect

Lesbia F. Smith, MD, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto

Tony Usher, Land Use PlannerBev Warner, Financial Management

Dave Watton, Planner & FacilitatorKaren Yukich, Writer and Editor

508 Pefferlaw Road

Pefferlaw, Ontario L0e 1N0

tel: 705.437.4271

toll free: 1.866.38MOBAL

fax: 705.437.2546

On Star: 905.490.0496

e-mail: [email protected]

Other e-mail: [email protected]

Website: mobalizers.com

Mike Walters

Director, Watershed Science

Lake Simcoe Region conservation Authority

120 Bayview Pkwy, Box 282

Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X1

Re: Stakeholder Acceptability Survey of Water Reuse

Dear Mike:

We are please to submit our final Report entitled ““Stakeholder/Public Attitudes towards Reuse of treated Wastewater”.

this report provides the survey findings on the following issues:

■■ Levels of stakeholder awareness of the concept of reusing purified water from sewage treatment plants.

■■ Stakeholder attitudes and opinions towards concept of reusing purified water

■■ identification of acceptable and unacceptable uses of purified water■■ Stakeholders rankings of the reasons for reusing purified water■■ types of information stakeholders need about reusing purified water and

who do they trust to provide this information■■ Method of engaging stakeholders in an on-going dialogue about reusing

purified water from sewage treatment plants

this survey was only possible because of the kind willingness of many elected officials, their senior staff and the public to grant us interviews in the midst of their busy schedules. We thank them for their kindness.

Sincerely

Robb OgilvieManaging Partner

P o l i c y ■W o n k s , ■ Fac i l i tato r s ■ a n d ■ co n F l i c t ■ r e s o lv e r s

March 31, 2010

Ogilvie, Ogilvie & Company - Policy Wonks, Facilitators and Conflict Resolvers

ContentsExecutive Summary .............................................................................................................6

1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................101.1 The “Proposition” for Reusing Treated Wastewater ...................................................10

1.2 An exploratory study into the concept of reusing purified water from sewage treatment plants...........................................................................................................................17

2.0 Stakeholder Acceptability ..........................................................................................192.1 The importance of stakeholder/public acceptability ...............................................19

2.2 Lessons from other jurisdictions and studies .............................................................20

2.3 Fundamental flaws in traditional models of consultation ....................................27

Decide, announce and defend (DAD) model doesn’t work ........................................27

The “deficit model” of public knowledge .............................................................................28

The “soft underbelly” of water reuse is public perception of risk ..............................29

Walkerton is still part of the public psyche ........................................................................30

Integrating the lessons from risk communication ..........................................................30

Risk communication is not a variation of social marketing ..........................................33

Public confidence in government, experts is continuing to erode ...........................33

Correlation between public perception of risk and trust in authorities ...................34

Social marketing may not be as promising as some propose .....................................35

We don’t know enough about public acceptance. ........................................................36

In search of new paradigms for engaging communities ..............................................36

2.4 Our conclusions from other jurisdictions .....................................................................38

3.0 Stakeholder Sensitivity Analysis ..............................................................................413.1 Researching Watershed Stakeholders ...........................................................................41

Reusing treated wastewater is new to the watershed ....................................................41

Lack of awareness is a double-edged sword .....................................................................41

One of the lessons is early involvement of the stakeholders/public .........................41

Public Acceptance of Reusing Treated Wastewater Page 3

Exploratory research survey before any proposals are developed ............................42

Not about drinking water! ........................................................................................................42

3.2 Survey Design .........................................................................................................................43

3.3 The survey questionnaire ...................................................................................................44

Section 1: General Awareness and Knowledge .................................................................44

Section 2: Acceptable and Non-Acceptable Uses.............................................................45

Section 3: If the study finds out that reusing purified water is feasible and acceptable, then answers to the following questions would be helpful ........................................47

Survey Logistics ............................................................................................................................48

Sample Characteristics ...............................................................................................................49

4.0 Survey Findings ..............................................................................................................544.1 General Awareness and Knowledge ..............................................................................54

Who supplies the drinking water for your home? ............................................................54

Who supplies the wastewater disposal system for your home? .................................54

Do you have a greywater reuse system in your home? ..................................................55

How much do you pay for water a year? .............................................................................55

How familiar are you with the concept of reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants? ........................................................................................................................56

Do you think there is a need to reuse purified water from wastewater treatment plants in the Lake Simcoe watershed? .................................................................................58

Do you think reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants for non-potable uses is a good idea? ....................................................................................................59

Please indicate how familiar you are with the following terms: .................................60

Comparison of Georgina, Bradford and Barrie .................................................................61

Summary of Section 1- General Awareness and Knowledge ......................................64

4.2 Acceptable and Non-Acceptable Uses of treated wastewater .............................66

Which uses of purified water from sewage treatment plants would be acceptable or not acceptable to you? ..............................................................................................................66

I would support reusing purified water because… .........................................................71

Whose opinions about reuse purified water would you trust the most? ................72


How important are each of the following questions to you? ......................................73

Which of the following terms/labels creates the best image? ....................................75

Which of the following water conservation measures do you practice? .................76

Summary of Section 2- Acceptable and Non-Acceptable Uses .................................78

4.3 If the study concludes that reusing purified water is feasible and acceptable, then answers to the following questions would be helpful ........................................81

From your perspective, do you agree or disagree with these conditions? .............81

Would you be prepared to pay a surcharge on your water bill ................................... 82

How much of an annual surcharge would you be willing to pay? .............................83

Do you have any concerns if the use was limited to commercial and industrial users and paid for by them? ................................................................................................................ 84

Biggest barriers are or would be to gaining public acceptance ................................84

Would you like to continue to be involved in this dialogue? ....................................... 86

If yes, how would you like to be involved? ........................................................................ 87

What are the best ways to communicate with you ........................................................88

Are there any other comments you would like to make? ..............................................89

Summary of Section 3- If the study concludes reusing water is feasible and acceptable ......................................................................................................................................91

5.0 Preliminary Conclusions from the Survey ............................................................945.1 There is an interest in the concept of water reuse ....................................................94

5.2 Definitely not potable uses ..............................................................................................95

5.3 Primary reasons for supporting water reuse are environmental .........................96

5.4 Biggest barriers to gaining public acceptance ...........................................................97

5.5 Who do the stakeholders/public trust the most? ......................................................99

5.6 On the Issue of Cost ..............................................................................................................99

5.7 Solid Stakeholder/Public Interest in further involvement ......................................100

5.8 In Conclusion .........................................................................................................................100

6.0 Towards an approach to meaningful engagement of stakeholders6.1 “If the ‘public’ is educated then they are likely to change their behaviour”- a misguided and naïve premise .................................................................................................102


6.2 Risk controversies associated with recycling water are intrinsically linked with institutional trust and credibility ............................................................................................103

6.3 Shifting attention from public acceptance of predetermined technological options to engaging stakeholders in meaningful dialogues ......................................104

6.4 The active participation and “ownership” of residents in the decision-making process is essential ......................................................................................................................105

6.5 Opposition to change is a normal response ..............................................................106

6.6 Principles for constructive engagement of stakeholders on water reuse ......106

6.7 Three Models for Engaging Stakeholders/Public on water Reuse ......................107

(a) Community (Locality ) development ..............................................................................107

(b) Using a “Change Management” Model ..........................................................................110

(c) Using Diffusion of Innovations Model ............................................................................112

6.8 Conclusions about engagement .....................................................................................113

Annex ........................................................................................................................................115Appendix A - Questionnaire .....................................................................................................116

Appendix B- Some Cases ...........................................................................................................126


Executive Summary�� General�lack�of�familiarity - 39% of respondents indicated they were not familiar with the concept

of water reuse while only 11% indicated they were very familiar�� General�perception�that�there�is�a�need�- 41% indicated there is a “need to reuse purified water

from wastewater treatment plants...” while 6% disagreed�� General�perception�that�it�is�a�good�idea�provided�non-potable�uses - 57% agreed it is a good

idea while 4% disagreed�� High�familiarity�with�common�water�and�wastewater�terms -81% familiar with terms like

wastewater, stormwater, potable, greywater and non-potable. Lower levels of familiarity with the terms reclaimed water, blackwater and aquifer recharge

�� Most�acceptable�uses�were�where�there�was�little�or�no�risk�of�human�ingestion � Flushing Wastewater Pipes ..................................94% � Cooling Power Plants .............................................93% � Gravel Washing ........................................................92% � Toilet Flushing ..........................................................92% � Sod Farming ..............................................................90% � Mixing Concrete ......................................................90% � Industrial Parks .........................................................89% � Golf Courses ..............................................................86% � Commercial Nurseries ...........................................84% � Non-Food Crops .......................................................83% � Fire Fighting ..............................................................83% � Street Cleaning .........................................................83% � Equipment Cleaning ..............................................82% � Dust Control ..............................................................81% � Car Washes .................................................................80%

�� Least�acceptable�uses�were�where�there�was�risk�of�human�ingestion ( We explicitly did not include potable uses so as to reduce the risk of controversy � Swimming Pools ......................................................57% � Public Swimming Pools .........................................56% � Laundries ....................................................................32% � Food Crops .................................................................25% � School Grounds .......................................................20% � Public Parks/Athletic Fields ..................................16% � Maintaining Pond Levels, Fountains, etc ........16% � Lawn/Garden Watering .........................................15%

�� Consistent�with�American�studies�of��acceptability�of�different�types�of�water�reuse�� The�primary�reasons�for�supporting�water�reuse�were�environmental:

� 68% -recycling of water and nutrients � 65% -reduce the amount of phosphorus and other nutrients going into Lake Simcoe � 63% -reduce the effluent going into the lakes and waterways � 63% -more environmentally sustainable than continuing to discharge treated wastewater into

streams and lakes�� The�major�concerns�about�water�reuse�are�dominated�by�potential�health�effects.

� What are the human and environmental health risks? ...................................................................95% � What safeguards are there to protect human and environmental health? .............................95% � What are the costs and benefits of the scheme? ...............................................................................93% � What will the purified water be used for? ie. What applications? ................................................93% � What monitoring/inspection systems will be instituted?...............................................................91%


�� Major�barriers�to�public�acceptance�listed�by�respondents�were: � Concerns about protection of public health � Lack of confidence in management of public utilities/authorities � Lack of public understanding about water reuse � Cost of treatment and distribution

�� Terminology�for�water�reuse�favoured�“reusing�purified�water”�and�“reclaiming�water�for�beneficial�uses”: � Reusing purified water ..........................................47% � Reclaiming water for beneficial uses ................38% � Reusing treated wastewater ................................34% � Recycling water ........................................................30% � Reclaiming water .....................................................20% � Reusing wastewater ...............................................9% � Reusing wasted water ...........................................8%

�� Although�levels�of�trust�were�low�and�mirrored�the�American�experiences,�the�sectors�most�trusted�were: � Public Health Units .................................................47% � Conservation Authorities .....................................42% � University Professors/Experts .............................31%

�� Some�willingness�to�pay�a�surcharge�for�water�reuse - 44% said “yes” and a further 34% said “Maybe”

�� Willing�to�pay�$100�to�$200�per�year�-60% said “$100 per year” and 25% said “$200 per year”�� Limited�concerns�if�the�use�of�the�purified�water�was�limited�to�commercial�and�industrial�

users�and�paid�for�by�them - 74% said no concerns�� Most�prevalent�water�conservation�measures�were�replacing�technology,�not�behaviour�

changes: � Use our automatic dishwasher only for full loads. ............................................................................96% � As appliances or fixtures wear out, we replace them with water-saving models. .................88% � Installing water saving showerheads .....................................................................................................77% � Replacing our existing toilet with a new low flush model .............................................................74% � Replacing normal kitchen faucets with faucet aerators. .................................................................68% � Installing a bathroom faucet aerators ...................................................................................................64% � We don’t let the faucet run while we clean vegetables. We rinse them in . .............................45% � We reduced our water needs by planting drought-resistant trees and plants. ......................45% � Installing toilet water saving devices. Early closure toilet flappers or toilet dams ................43%

�� Majority�of�respondents�interested�in�continued�involvement - 59% said “yes”�� Respondents�favoured�the�following�methods:

� Include me on the mailing list ...........................58% � Include me in any future surveys ......................56% � Advise me of any website ....................................53% � Focus groups/workshops or forums .................41% � Newspaper articles and useful reports ...........38% � Future Task Forces or Working Groups ............26%

�� Public�Information�Meetings�and�Websites�were�preferred�communication�channels:�� Information�on�Websites�........................... 61% � Public Information Meetings ..............................57% � Articles in the Local Newspaper.........................48% � Television Programs on Public Channels ........41% � Mailed Informational Pamphlets .......................40% � Workshops .................................................................40% � Newsletters ................................................................39% � Focus Groups ............................................................30%


Conclusions about engagement

1.�Stakeholder/public�acceptability�has�become�the�major�barrier/challenge�to water reuse schemes/proposals

2.�Water�reuse�projects�automatically�begin�with�a�stigma�or�handicap - The Yuck factor

3.�Water�reuse�projects�also�suffer�from�negative�branding by opponents - Sewer water, Toilet-to-tap

4.�Any�water�reuse�scheme�is�likely�to�become�controversial. Even though non-potable appears to be more acceptable, there are sufficient examples where even non-potable became contentious.

5.�Potable�water�reuse�clearly�is�the�most�unacceptable scheme to stakeholders/public. Any projects that propose water reuse for drinking, bathing, cooking appear destined to crash on the rocks of public opposition. It is essential from the get-go that we declare potable uses as not even on the table for research purposes.

6.�Non-potable�water�reuse�is�generally�more�acceptable�to�the�stakeholders/public�but�this�support�is�by�no�means�universal.

7.�Protection�of�public�health�appears�to�be�the�source�of�most�controversies involving water reuse. After all, regardless of level of treatment, water reuse is about sewage.

8.�The�Walkerton�experience�has�increased�residents�and�stakeholders�concerned�about�protecting�water�quality in Ontario… this negative legacy should be expected to cloud/influence attitudes and opinions about water reuse projects

9.�If�the�major�controversies�with�water�reuse�focus�on�public�health�issues,�then�there�is�a�need�to�integrate�risk�communication�theory�and�practice�into�any�constructive�engagement�process.

10.�Risk�communication�is�not�a�variation�of�social�marketing. Risk communications is about raising the level of understanding of relevant issues or actions and satisfying those involved that they are adequately informed within the limits of available knowledge.

11. Public consultation/involvement has been based on the “deficit model” -better known as the “public needs to be educated and then they will see that we are right and then they agree with us”. Needless to say, this�thinking�is�flawed�when�it�comes�to�technical/scientific�issues�involving�public�and�environmental�health.

12. Public confidence in governments, experts and water reuse technologies has been on a downward trend as projects and testimonies about safety have been found wanting. There�is�great�public�suspicion�of�and�a�lack�of�trust�in�our�governing�institutions�and�the�people�around�them.

13. This is an especially unfortunate�phenomenon�since�there�is�a�high�correlation�between�public�perception�of�risk�and�trust�in�the�authorities.

14. This lack of trust is further exacerbated by an almost universal adoption of the DAD model by proponents of water reuse schemes. The�“Decide�-�Announce�-�Defend”�model�has�been�found�to�be�totally�ineffective�when�one�is�dealing�with�controversial�or�potentially�controversial�infrastructure�projects. These “LULUs” ( locally unwanted land uses) require a different model.

15.�Proponents�using�the�DAD�model�invariably�resort�to�social�marketing�tools�and�techniques to position their proposal in the best light and proceed to try to persuade the populace or target audience.

16. Given the failures of many water reuse project to achieve public acceptance, a number of authors are�calling�for�new�models�and�paradigms�of�consensus�development�and�collaboration�with�stakeholders/public.

17.�Need�to�think�of�public�acceptance�as�the�core�issue,�not�a�sidebar�issue�to be dealt with by


more education.

18.�Possible�guiding�principles�for�community�engagement: � Institute a broad based participatory process � Initiate consensus building as early as possible � Manage information for all stakeholder � Achieve agreement that the status quo is unacceptable � Do not exclude contentious issues from consensus building efforts � Maintain individual motivation and demonstrate organizational commitment � Build and maintain trust � Guarantee that stringent public health and safety standards will be met � Fully address all negative aspects of water reuse � Modify traditional procedures to better accommodate consensus building � opportunities � Ensure fair and sound decision-making and decisions

19.�We�propose�3�models�for�community�engagement,�each�will�avoid�many�of�the�pitfalls�and�limitations�of�traditional�consultation�processes:

�� Community�(Locality�)�development�Model - The community (locality) development model is a grass-roots planning and implementation model as opposed to a top-down model.

�� A�“Change�Management”�Model�-Change management is a structured approach to transitioning individuals, teams, and organizations from a current state to a desired future state.Change management principles and concepts can also be used to influence or effect change in a community.

�� A�Diffusion�of�Innovations�Model - Knowledge – person becomes aware of an innovation and has some idea of how it functions, - Persuasion – person forms a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the innovation, - Decision – person engages in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject the innovation, - Implementation – person puts an innovation into use, - Confirmation – person evaluates the results of an innovation-decision already made.

20.�Recognize�that�we�don’t�know�enough�about�public�values,�interests�regarding�water�and�concepts�like�water�reuse.��And�move�forward�incrementally,�learning�more�as�we�go.


1.0 Introduction

1.1 The “Proposition” for Reusing Treated Wastewater

Water reuse definitions“To facilitate communication among different groups associated with water reuse, it is important

to understand the terminology used in the arena of water reclamation and reuse. Wastewater reclamation is the treatment or processing of wastewater to make it reusable, and water reuse is the use of treated wastewater for beneficial purposes such as agricultural irrigation and industrial cooling. Reclaimed water is a treated effluent suitable for an intended water reuse application. In addition, direct water reuse requires the existence of pipes or other conveyance facilities for delivering reclaimed water. Indirect reuse, through discharge of an effluent to receiving water for assimilation and withdrawals downstream, is recognized to be important but does not constitute planned direct water reuse. In contrast to direct water reuse, water recycling normally involves only one use or user and the effluent from the user is captured and redirected back into that use scheme.

...In general, water reuse applications fall under one of seven categories: (1) agricultural irrigation, (2) landscape irrigation, (3) groundwater recharge, (4) industrial reuse, (5) environmental and recreational uses, (6) non-potable urban uses, and (7) indirect or direct potable reuse”

[Water from (waste)water – the dependable water resource, Professor Takashi Asano Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Davis, 1998, P. 25-27].

Water Supplies will reach their limitYork Region and Simcoe County are experiencing significant population growth which is increasing the demand for additional water. Although Ontarians tend to think of the Province as having an unlimited supply of water, York Region is expected to reach capacity by 2031 after which it will require an expansion in system capacity on or about 2037. The following Figure is from the Water and Wastewater Master Plan, York Region, 2009


Limitations on transferring water between watersheds Approximately 80% of York Region’s water supply comes by pipe for Lake Ontario and York Region is in the process of applying for an increase in its water takings. But these water takings are subject to international agreements that have banned intra-basin transfers.

“A main feature of York Region is that it contains a watershed divide. Streams and rivers in the upper portion of the Region drain to Lake Simcoe, which lies in the Late Huron watershed, while streams and rivers in the lower portion of the Region drain to Lake Ontario. This presents a challenge for York Region because provincial law and the Great Lakes Charter Agreement ban new or increased transfers of drinking water from one Great Lakes watershed to another [known as intra-basin transfers], unless specific conditions known as exception criteria are met.” [ Water and Wastewater Master Plan, York Region, 2009]

Water Conservation is increasing but not the panacea Municipalities have developed incentive programs to get home owners to install water efficient toilets, shower heads, etc. Communities have instituted bans on watering lawns and other restrictions on water use. If we could reuse properly treated wastewater for things like landscape irrigation, nurseries, commercial air conditioning, etc., this would help.

York Region’s Water for Tomorrow program began in 1998 and it’s estimated to be saving approximately 20.3 million litres of water per day. During the initial phase of the program, Water for Tomorrow replaced more than 106,000 showerheads with low flow models and more than 245,000 toilet flappers with early closing models. Water for Tomorrow is committed to helping York Region residents and businesses save water by:

� Annually conducting 1,500 free personalized lawn and garden visits to assess gardens and offer advice on creating a beautiful and water efficient lawn.

� Offering 15 free water efficient garden design workshops in the spring of each year. � Providing useful information and tips on how to use less water in your home, without altering

your lifestyle. � Partnering with garden centres, community groups and schools to provide water efficient

demonstration gardens. � Initiating rebate incentives for water efficient fixtures for your

home or business. � Offering heavily-discounted rain barrels for sale each spring. � Providing student education in the form of a Grade 7

curriculum for teachers and workbooks for students. � Providing both business and industry with an opportunity

for free water efficiency audits and financial incentives for switching to more water efficient practices.

Lake Simcoe Protection PlanOne of the key targets of the plan is the reduction of phosphorus entering the lake. There are currently 14 municipal and 1 industrial water treatment facilities within the Lake Simcoe watershed contributing to phosphorus loading to surface waters.

“The primary sources of excess phosphorus to Lake Simcoe and its tributaries include:

� effluent from sewage treatment plants serving urban communities and industry in the watershed;

� stormwater runoff from urban areas within the watershed; � land use activities in rural, agricultural, urban and shoreline


areas; � septic systems; and � atmospheric deposition of phosphorus in airborne dust caused by wind erosion from site

alteration activities, construction sites, agricultural fields and mineral aggregate operations.One of the biggest water quality challenges in Lake Simcoe is to reduce phosphorus loads to a level

at which dissolved oxygen conditions could support a self-sustaining coldwater fish community. Based on estimates from current models, phosphorus loadings would need to be reduced to a level of approximately 44 tonnes per year to achieve the proposed dissolved oxygen target of 7 milligrams per litre (mg/L)......Future growth in the watershed will result in a greater demand on these sewage treatment plants to manage more sewage at a higher level of treatment. ...The following policies are intended to further improve water quality, including addressing emerging issues, and reduce excessive phosphorus loading to the lake by imposing requirements on existing approvals and placing restrictions on both phosphorus loadings and the establishment of new sewage treatment plants, with some exceptions.

4.1-DP For a proposed settlement area expansion, establishment of a new settlement area or a development proposal outside of a settlement area that requires an increase in the existing rated capacity of a sewage treatment plant or the establishment of a new sewage treatment plant, an environmental assessment of the undertaking shall be completed or approved prior to giving any approvals ...

4.2-DP Within one year of the date the Plan comes into effect, the Director shall review and amend the approvals for all sewage treatment plants in the Lake Simcoe watershed ...

4.3-DP No new municipal sewage treatment plant shall be established in the Lake Simcoe watershed unless:

a. the new plant is intended to replace an existing municipal sewage treatment plant; or

b. the new sewage treatment plant will provide sewage services to,i. a development that is on partial services, orii. a development where one or more subsurface sewage works or on-site sewage

systems are failing.4.4-DP No new non-municipal sewage treatment plant shall be established in the Lake

Simcoe watershed unless the person applying to establish the plant candemonstrate that:

a. the plant will result in a net reduction of phosphorous loadings to the watershed from the baseline conditions for the property that would be serviced by the new plant; or

b. the undertaking that the plant will serve will not add phosphorous loadings to the Lake Simcoe watershed.”

[Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, Province of Ontario, 2009]


Increasing Costs of Sewage TreatmentSewage treatment plants are under increasing pressure to reduce the levels of nutrients they discharge into Lake Simcoe, in particular, phosphorus. The costs of new technologies to reduce phosphorus are increasing the costs of sewage treatment. Depending on the situation, water reuse may be cost effective.

“ The primary limiting factor in the cost effectiveness of water reuse systems is often the infrastructure costs associated with the reclaimed water distribution system. The costs of the distribution system are essentially the determining factor for the project feasibility when reclaimed water system is installed in an urban area, where centralized water and wastewater systems are already constructed and the area is fully developed. When water supply and wastewater treatment infrastructure are newly constructed in an area, the cost of installing dual distribution transmission lines from a WWTP or community treatment system back to a beneficial use will be less significant. The cost of treatment system is the next important element. The reduced cost of membrane technology is opening the opportunity for innovative water reuse applications.” [THE ROLE OF WATER RECLAMATION IN WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN THE 21ST CENTURY, K. Esposito1, R. Tsuchihashi, J. Anderson, J. Selstrom, 2005]

“ A common misconception in planning for water reclamation and reuse is that reclaimed water represents a low-cost new water supply. This assumption is generally true only when water reclamation facilities are conveniently located near large agricultural or industrial users and when no additional treatment is required beyond the existing water pollution control facilities from which reclaimed water is delivered. The conveyance and distribution systems for reclaimed water represent the principal cost of most water reuse projects.” [Water from (waste)water – the dependable water resource, Professor Takashi Asano Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Davis, 1998, P. 31].

We use drinking water for almost everythingWe use highly treated, expensive drinking water for virtually all our water needs - Fire fighting, swimming pools, watering landscapes, industrial uses, etc. The following pie chart was developed by Hansgrohe International to illustrate this point.

“We are accustomed to use drinking water for almost everything – even where we don’t need it . The pie chart illustrates this clearly: the green segments represent activities for which drinking water quality isn’t strictly necessary”. [http://www.hansgrohe-int.com/int_en/86228.htm]


No higher quality water, unless there is a surplus of it, should be used for a purpose that can tolerate a lower grade

“ In 1958, the United Nations Economic and Social Council provided a management policy to support this approach by stating that “no higher quality water, unless there is a surplus of it, should be used for a purpose that can tolerate a lower grade” (United Nations, 1958). Low quality waters such as wastewater, drainage waters and brackish waters should, whenever possible, be considered as alternative sources for less restrictive uses.” [Water Pollution Control - A Guide to the Use of Water Quality Management Principles Edited by Richard Helmer and Ivanildo Hespanhol Published on behalf of the United Nations Environment Programme, the Water Supply & Sanitation Collaborative Council and the World Health Organization by E. & F. Spon © 1997]

We are wasting wastewaterNormally, wastewater from sewage treatment plants is purified to an environmentally acceptable level and then pumped into some nearby stream, lake or other waterbody. In effect, we are “wasting” this potential source of water for beneficial uses.

“ Inadequate water supplies and water quality deterioration represent serious contemporary concerns for many municipalities, industries, agriculture, and the environment in various parts of the world. Several factors have contributed to these problems such as continued population growth in urban areas, contamination of surface water and groundwater, uneven distribution of water resources, and frequent droughts caused by extreme global weather patterns. For more than a quarter of a century, a recurring thesis in environmental and water resources engineering has been that it is feasible to treat wastewater to a high enough quality that it is a resource that could be put to beneficial use rather than wasted. By applying this conviction to responsible engineering, coupled with the vexing problems of increasing water shortages and environmental pollution, a realistic framework has emerged for considering reclaimed water as a water resource in many parts of the world. Thus, water reuse has been dubbed as the greatest challenge of the 21st century as water supplies remain finite and water demands increase because of escalating populations and per capita consumption. Water reuse accomplishes two fundamental functions:

� the treated effluent is used as a water resource for beneficial purposes, and � the effluent is kept out of streams, lakes, and beaches; thus reducing pollution of surface water

and groundwater. [Water from (waste)water – the dependable water resource, Professor Takashi Asano Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Davis, 1998, P. 24].


Thinking of treated wastewater as a resourceOne alternative to continued wasting of treated wastewater is to stop thinking of sewage effluent as waste and recognize that it is a resource that could be used to reduce the demand for potable water. We could reuse treated wastewater from sewage treatment plants for non-potable uses such as flush toilets, for irrigation of non-edible crops, some industry, and even a water source for fire fighting. Some of the uses and benefits of reusing treated wastewater include:

“ The incorporation of wastewater use planning into national water resource and agricultural planning is important, especially where water shortages exist. This is not only to protect sources of high quality waters but also to minimise wastewater treatment costs, safeguard public health and to obtain the maximum agricultural and aquacultural benefit from the nutrients that wastewater contains. Wastewater use may well help reduce costs, especially if it is envisaged before new treatment works are built, because the standards of effluents required for various types of use may result in costs lower than those for normal environmental protection. It also provides the possibility of recovering the resources invested in sewerage and represents a very efficient way of postponing investment of new resources in water supply” [Water Pollution Control - A Guide to the Use of Water Quality Management Principles Edited by Richard Helmer and Ivanildo Hespanhol Published on behalf of the United Nations Environment Programme, the Water Supply & Sanitation Collaborative Council and the World Health Organization by E. & F. Spon © 1997]

The concept of reusing treated wastewater from sewage treatment plants has been put into practice in many drought stricken areas. In Australia and the southwestern United States water recycling and reuse offer cost-effective, multi-benefit solutions to environmental problems.

Total Water Management includes water reuse Water reuse is an essential feature of Total Water Management. This integrated approach to sustainable water resources is also referred to as Integrated Water Management

“Total Water Management includes the following tenets:

� Water is viewed as a resource to be used and reused – essentially speeding up the water cycle; � Stormwater is viewed as a resource rather than a ‘waste’; � Water demand is managed concurrently with supply through conservation, pricing and

incentives; � Higher levels of wastewater treatment are provided with the volumes released back into the

environment being greatly reduced; � Catchment Management is an integral component; all point and non-point sources are

identified and managed; � Ecosystem management important – environmental flows identified and catered for; � Total integration of water, air and land issues; � Biosolids reused, not disposed; and � Water is used to create recreational and aesthetic focal points for the community.

On the micro scale, on-going research into topics related to advanced reuse is required on the following:


� Detection of emerging pathogens � Better indicator organisms � Rapid on-line monitoring techniques � Organic chemical identification & fate � Treatment performance & reliability � Continuous (on-line) toxicological testing � Effect of dilution, soil interaction, and aquifer injection on organic chemicals � Effectiveness of environmental buffers

To this list could be added ‘effective public communication and education programmes’ for it is crucially important that the community is ‘brought along’ as any advanced reuse project is planned and implemented.” [Potable Reuse- What are we afraid of”, Ian B Law, IBL Solutions]

Professor Asano’s Three Principles for Water Reuse“The foundation of water reuse is built upon three principles:

� providing reliable treatment of wastewater to meet strict water quality requirements for the intended reuse application,

� protecting public health, and � gaining public acceptance.

...Public policies can be implemented that promote water conservation and reuse rather than the costly development of additional water resources with considerable environmental expenditures. Through integrated water resources planning, the use of reclaimed water may provide sufficient flexibility to allow a water agency to respond to short-term needs as well as increase the reliability of long-term water supplies.” [Water from (waste)water – the dependable water resource, Professor Takashi Asano Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Davis, 1998, P. 24].

Public Acceptance is a key factorBefore reuse of reclaimed wastewater can become a reality, the public must accept the product. Public

attitude surveys have shown that a large segment of the public endorses wastewater reuse for agricultural and urban irrigation, industrial use, toilet flushing, and scenic lakes whereas a lesser fraction supports its use for boating/fishing, laundry, and beaches and bathing, and a still smaller fraction for food canning, cooking, and drinking. General acceptance for drinking reclaimed water ranged from 40 to more than 80 per cent. If the reclaimed water was to be of the same or better quality than the current supply, results of a Denver survey showed that 84.1 per cent of the public agreed to some degree. Some 63 per cent of Denver residents favored eventual potable water reuse....

In a recent article, Wolman indicated that people were militant, concerned, fearful, and even hysterical in their search for guaranteed safety and zero risk. He identified as a parameter public confrontation, and noted that this complex human behavior “. . . compounded by concern, ignorance, misconception, hysteria, and fear of the unknown ... has its origin in pressure groups, officialdom, and the communications media...” [ Editorial Wastewater Recycling and Reuse ,AJPH August 1986, Vol. 76, No. 8]


1.2 An exploratory study into the concept of reusing purified water from sewage treatment plants.

The study has been undertaken by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and funded under the Lake Simcoe Clean-Up Fund (which is administered by Environment Canada) and with a grant from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. In the Lake Simcoe watershed isolated water supply issues and concerns over water quality associated with the discharging the treated effluent to Lake Simcoe are part of the investigation of water reuses and recycling. Opportunities for reuse of the sewage treatment effluent do exist within the watershed but need to be evaluated in more detail. Some potential options include: purple pipe systems utilized within new homes, business, industry and public facilities for non-potable uses; irrigation of golf courses, sod farms and lawns could also be considered acceptable uses along with the potential for maintaining environmental flows in some watercourses.

Study of Water Reuse in Lake Simcoe WatershedThe exploratory investigation has two components:

� Investigation of the technical and financial feasibility � Investigation of the stakeholder /public acceptability

AECOM has been retained to undertake the technical investigations The technical investigations will cover such issues and matters as:

� Identification of the potential demands for reclaimed water within the basin, now and into the future.

� A treatment requirement for reclaimed water to ensure it’s suitable for the intended use. � Infrastructure requirements required to operate a water reuses system including storage,

conveyance and distribution requirements. � Operational requirements including the identification of knowledge, skills and human resources

necessary to operate and maintain a reuse system. � Potential environmental impacts\benefits and costs or cost savings associated with implementing a

reclaimed water system. � Potential public health considerations in dealing with water reclamation.

Ogilvie, Ogilvie & Company has been retained to undertake the Investigation of the stakeholder acceptability

This will involve gauging stakeholder and public acceptance of potential reuse applications and include such issues as:

� Levels of stakeholder awareness of the concept of reusing purified water from sewage treatment plants.

� Stakeholder attitudes and opinions towards concept of reusing purified water � Identification of acceptable and unacceptable uses of purified water � Stakeholders rankings of the reasons for reusing purified water � Types of information stakeholders need about reusing purified water and who do they trust to

provide this information � Method of engaging stakeholders in an on-going dialogue about reusing purified water from

sewage treatment plants


2.0 Stakeholder Acceptability2.1 The importance of stakeholder/public acceptability

The following excerpt from the San Diego News Network Illustrates the importance of public attitudes towards water reuse.

For almost two decades, San Diego has debated the use of Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) water as a source of replenishing the reservoirs in the city and county for its drinking supply. From water officials at the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) and the local water districts within the county, to academics, and private business experts, all agree that the reuse of water for drinking is safe, affordable and necessary.

But buttressing this argument is the “yuk factor” associated with the concept of drinking treated sewage water, and the belief by many that trying to blend sewage water into the drinking supply is a recipe for disease and a public health disaster. The term “toilet-to-tap” has become the rallying cry for opponents to IPR [entitled overcoming-the-stigma-of-toilet-to-tap-water ]

Given the experiences in other jurisdictions where some water reuse projects have been quickly stigmatized by adverse media coverage and/or special interest group opposition, this investigation into stakeholder/public attitudes is designed to “test the waters” before any specific water reuse proposals are developed and tabled.

One of the fundamental axioms about public attitudes towards any issue is “things are not what they are, but what they seem”. In keeping with this axiom, our first challenge will be gauging what the public’s initial impressions of the concept of reusing treated wastewater will be.

There are a number of examples and case studies that provide some insights into public perceptions and consultation needs of these types of “innovations” . We have deliberately used the term “innovations” because the diffusion of innovations theory has lessons about why some innovations are adopted quickly and why others lie dormant. We think diffusion theory may help us later when we discuss different models for engaging stakeholders/public about water reuse.

The following is a partial list of cases examined for purposes of identifying public perception issues and consultation needs:

� Irvine Ranch Water District – California � Monterey County Water Recycling Project-

California � Rouse Hill residential dual reticulation

wastewater reuse – Sydney, Australia � Virginia Pipeline Scheme, Bolivar, South

Australia � San Diego water repurification project –

California � San Gabriel Valley groundwater recharge

project – California � Toowoomba, Australia - Where treated

sewage effluent is returned to the Cooby Dam via a chain of ponds, wetlands, bores and aquifers.


2.2 Lessons from other jurisdictions and studies

The successful cases seem to be water reuse for non-potable uses Indirect potable reuse is practiced in the United States, Australia and other countries. These well-planned, well engineered water supply projects (e.g. Orange County’s groundwater replenishment system, Scottsdale’s water campus, and the West basin municipal water District’s water recycling facility) are considered to be very successful and are held up in their communities as significant achievements.

“ Currently Adelaide recycles more of its wastewater than any other capital city. Already 30 per cent of our treated wastewater is recycled each year for irrigation use, toilet flushing and garden watering - and this is set to increase. A range of significant wastewater projects is under way to increase reuse to nearly 45 per cent. Increased recycling of wastewater will provide more water for agriculture, community parks and gardens, and reduce the fl ow of nutrient discharge into the sea where it can harm our delicate marine environment.”

� Aldinga Wastewater Treatment Plant – All treated water from this plant (approximately 328 ML a year) is reused, approximately 328 ML per year, predominantly by the Willunga Basin Water Company for local irrigators

� Port Augusta West Sewer Mining Project – recycles 180 ML a year for irrigation of community parks and gardens

� Whyalla Wastewater Reuse – recycling 600 ML a year to irrigate parks, gardens and a golf course

� Mawson Lakes – when fully developed in 2010, Mawson Lakes will cater for approximately 10,000 residents. A major feature of the development is the innovative $16 million water recycling system which complements the mains water supply. Recycled water is derived from sewerage systems and treated to a standard which is suitable for non-drinking purposes

[Water for Good - A plan to ensure our water future to 2050, Government of South Australia, 2009, P. 26]

Time is measured in decades, not years. Public acceptance is an elusive point in a long term process and is sometimes never achieved in spite of the best plans. The Monterey County Water Recycling Project took almost 20 years of planning before the project was fully operational in 1998. Every member of the community was told about the value of water by the Irvine Ranch Water District for decades.

Stenekes et al noted “the water industry’s “measured silence” in response to revelations that people may already be drinking water partly sourced from sewage effluent may contribute to distrust in agencies. The authors argue that there is a need to actively engage the community on the use of reclaimed water to provide ‘comfort’ regarding the concept over a number of years prior to implementation of more sensitive schemes” .

Acceptance varies depending on opportunity and necessity To date the major emphasis of water reclamation and reuse has been on non-potable applications such as agricultural and landscape irrigation, industrial cooling, and in-building applications such as toilet flushing in large commercial buildings. Indirect and direct potable reuse options raise more public concern and uncertainty.


In any case, the value of water reuse is weighed within a context of larger public issues. Water reuse implementation continues to be influenced by diverse factors such as:

� opportunity and necessity; � drought and reliability of water supply; � growth versus no growth; � urban sprawl, traffic noise, and air

pollution; and � the perception of reclaimed water safety,

aesthetics, political will, and � public policy governing sustainable water

resources management.

[Water Reuse : Issues, Technologies, and Applications, Takashi Asano and Franklin J. Burton and Harold L. Leverenz and Ryujiro Tsuchihashi, McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing, January 2007, p. 31]

The “Yuck” Factor“Researchers and water authorities in Australia say there’s no scientific or health reason that recycled

wastewater can’t be safely used as part of drinking water supplies if treated properly. But there can be a formidable psychological reason. It’s called the ‘yuck factor’ - based on the thinking that the water in the glass in your hand might have started off in someone’s toilet bowl.” [Making every drop count -http://www.science.org.au/nova/095/095key.htm

“The so-called yuck factor, a term coined by University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Arthur Caplan to describe the influence of instinctive responses against new technology, has a wide scope. In California, it’s derailed projects for converting wastewater into drinking water in several municipalities. It’s been cited in public opposition to foods from cloned animals and genetically modified (GM) crops. It’s even been named as a barrier to programs for trading carbon dioxide emission credits on the open market, says Åsa Löfgren, an economist at Göteberg University, Sweden, who points to widespread aversion to the notion that companies could buy rights to pollute. Generally speaking, “yuck factor” has become a catchall phrase to describe technophobic sentiments that vary by what triggers them. The disgust elicited by drinking reclaimed wastewater, for instance, differs from the moral outrage induced by human cloning.” [The Yuck Factor When Disgust Meets Discovery, Charles W. Schmidt, Environ Health Perspect. 2008 December; 116(12): A524–A527.]

Meanwhile, science routinely generates technologies that—though they might initially be seen as repugnant—are also borne of real need. For instance, wastewater reclamation, the process by which sewage water is treated to augment drinking, industrial, and agricultural water supplies, responds to the growing problem of drought. In this case, the yuck factor—exacerbated perhaps by the use of terms such as “recycled sewage” and “toilet-to-tap”—stands in the way of a solution to dwindling water supplies that experts generally view as cost-effective and safe.

“For most people, arguments typically made by water treatment officials about the chemical purity of reclaimed water hold no sway over a stomach-level sense that a substance is unclean, says Rozin. Factors besides the water’s physical make-up, such as its history, lead people to feel that it has been contaminated, he says. Research by Rozin and his colleagues in 1986 illustrates this point. In a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 50, No. 4), researchers placed a

Warning sign in Santa Monica, California, where reclaimed water is used to irrigate plants in public parks.


sterilized roach into a glass of water. All but one of the 50 participants refused to drink the water, despite being aware that the roach carried no diseases. Even after the researcher removed the roach from the glass, the thirsty participants would not drink the water. People consider human waste to be just as unclean as roaches, says Rozin. In fact, every culture social scientists have studied so far reviles excrement and everything it’s associated with, he notes. This disgust reaction applies even to things that appear similar to human waste products, he notes. In a study described in the book “Cultural Psychology” (Cambridge University Press, 1990), psychologists opened a sealed container of apple juice, poured it into a new bedpan and offered thirsty participants the opportunity to drink it. Most participants, including fans of apple juice, flatly refused. Even after avowing that they knew the bedpan had never been used, the participants still would not drink the juice. Because these connections exist independently of scientific understanding, they cannot be combated with facts about the chemical makeup of a “contaminated” substance, such as wastewater, Rozin says.”[ From toilet to tap Psychologists lend their expertise to overcoming the public’s aversion to reclaimed water. By SADIE F. DINGFELDER, Monitor Staff September 2004, Vol 35, No. 8]

“Toilet to Tap” and “Sewage Beverage”“In the 1990s, a number of high profile indirect potable water reuse projects in the U.S. encountered stiff

public opposition. The public took political action and prevented water reuse projects from being implemented in these cases. Terms like “Toilet to Tap” and “Sewage Beverage” were common in the public dialog. In San Diego, the newspaper published a cartoon of a dog drinking from a toilet and a man behind the dog saying, “Move over…” As one veteran of risk communication in California water resource said, “discourse is often dominated by a few true believers on both sides, often with extreme views, and is usually competitive and antagonistic.” [Public Perception and Participation in Water Reuse, Troy W. Hartley Department of Resource Economics and Development, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH,]

Not well understood with respect to long-term health effects Due to land use practices and the increasing proportion of treated wastewater discharged into the nation’s waters, freshwater sources of drinking water now contain many of the same constituents of public health concern that are found in reclaimed water. Much of the research that addresses direct and indirect potable water reuse is becoming equally relevant to unplanned indirect potable reuse (de facto indirect potable reuse) that occurs naturally when water sources containing wastewater discharges are used as a source for drinking water supply. Because of the research interest and public concerns, emerging pathogens and trace organic constituents including disinfection byproducts, pharmaceutically active compounds, and personal care products have been investigated and reported on extensively with regard to public water sources. However, the ramifications of many of these constituents in trace quantity are not well understood with respect to long-term health effects – hence igniting public concerns.

“Recent studies support long standing concerns about possible public health effects of reclaimed water. It has been known for some time that treated waste water effluent, or reclaimed water, contains pathogens that could be transferred to people through contact, including aerosols from sprinklers. Particularly worrisome are high levels of parasites such as giardia and cryptosporidium which are not killed by chlorination. [Gennaccaro,


McLaughlin, Betancourt, Huffman and Rose, Infectious Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts in Final Reclaimed Effluent, Dept Marine Science, U of South Florida, St Petersburg, Florida.]

In 1997, the United States Environmental Protection Agency warned, “(Viable) bacteria from reclaimed water in sprinklers can travel more than 1000 feet in the air.” [EPA Guidelines for Water Reuse, (1996)] As far back as 1984, researchers concluded that disinfection by chlorination, an important part of wastewater treatment, initially lowers the total number of sewage related bacteria, but may substantially increase the proportions of antibiotic resistant, potentially pathogenic organisms.[GE Murray, RS Tobin, B Junkins, DJ Kushner,(1984) Effect of Chlorination on antibiotic resistance profiles of sewage-related bacteria, Appl Environ Microbiol. July 1998:48(1): 73-74]

More recently, Chang (2007) reported that Staphylococcus aureus bacteria (responsible for MRSA) become more virulent and drug resistant after chlorination.[10] A large study in 2006 confirms that microbes, inactivated but not killed by treatment, can regrow in retention ponds and pipes, becoming a major source of the spread of multi-drug resistant pathogens in the environment.[Timothy Lapara, Sara Firl,(2006) The Importance of Municipal Sewage Treatment in the Spread of Antibiotic resistance,100th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology, May 21-25, 2006. Orlando Fl.] During the processing of reclaimed water, fragments can be released from microbes when their cell walls are disrupted. These fragments are not alive and not affected by disinfectants like chlorine. This intact genetic material can transfer both virulence and drug resistance to living microorganisms in water or soil. Amy Pruden (2006) demonstrates that such genetic fragments pass through sewer water reclamation plants into rivers and into drinking water sources. Since the number and types of bacteria in a treatment plant are large, and are exposed to antibiotic pharmaceuticals in wastewater, a positive environment exists for transfer of drug resistance. Independent scientists found that Santa Barbara’s reclaimed water contained chlorine resistant bacteria that were also resistant to eleven of the twelve antibiotics tested.[ Edo Mcgowan, (2008) The Watchers.US/edo_politics-reclaimed-water.html-74k]

There is also concern in the industry about organic chemicals, including endocrine disruptors in wastewater. [Maria Burke (2004),UK to tackle Endocrine Disruptors in Wastewater, Technology News, Sept 1,2004.] In 2005, the United States Department of Agriculture reported: “Overall, the environmental and public health impacts of irrigation with reclaimed sewage effluent and the potential degradation of underlying groundwater are largely unknown.”

The controversial cases involved recycled water for drinking “the intensity of the public’s reaction, concern, and debate over water reuse is magnified when the reuse

issues change from non-potable to potable. In fact, while many in the scientific and engineering communities believe that non-potable reuse is feasible and often desirable, the acceptance within the scientific and technical communities is far from uniform in regards to indirect potable reuse. The technical and scientific challenges and difference of opinion among scientists and engineers introduces greater uncertainty into the public debate. The uncertainty can be accompanied by more intensity in the opposition and expression of public concerns.” [ [Public Perception and Participation in Water Reuse, Troy W. Hartley Department of Resource Economics


and Development, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH,]

“ In most locations, reclaimed water is not directly mixed with potable (drinking) water for several reasons:

� Utilities providing reclaimed water for nonpotable uses do not treat the water to drinking water standards.

� Varying amounts of pathogens, pharmaceutical chemicals (e.g., hormones from female hormonal contraception) and other trace chemicals are able to pass through the treatment and filtering process, potentially causing danger to humans. Modern technologies such as reverse osmosis may help to somewhat overcome this problem. An experiment by the University of New South Wales reportedly showed a reverse osmosis system removed ethinylestradiol and paracetamol from the wastewater, even at 1000 times the expected concentration.[ From the Toilet to the Tap, Australian Broadcasting Corporation 9 November 2006]

� Drinking water standards were developed for natural ground water, and are not appropriate for identifying contaminants in reclaimed water. In addition to pathogens, and organic and endocrine disrupting chemicals, a large number of compounds may be present in reclaimed water. They cannot all be tested for, and there is a paucity of toxicity information on many of the compounds. [Committee on the Viability of Augmenting Drinking Water Supplies with Reclaimed water, 1998, Issues in Potable Reuse, National Research Council]

Because of this, state regulatory agencies do not allow reclaimed water to be used for drinking, bathing, or filling swimming pools. They also warn those who use reclaimed water for irrigation to place a sign on their property warning people not to drink from the irrigation system, and to not use it directly on fruits or vegetables.

Businesses may fear customer resistance and competitor attack campaigns The potential for adverse public opinion regarding the finished product may make industries reluctant to use recycled water, even with significant cost savings that could be passed to the customer. One case in California found farmers in one county worried that the farmers in an adjacent county would mount an advertising campaign against their use of recycled water for irrigation as a health hazard to consumers.

“A legitimate concern of growers using recycled water is the specter of a negative campaign by competitors who may one day claim they do not use “sewer water” to irrigate their crops, implying that those who use recycled water are producing inferior crops. This possibility has been raised frequently in recent years. However, the fear has remained just a possibility and has not materialized in the many places where farmers have actually used recycled water for crop irrigation.


A significant factor in favor of marketability of produce grown with recycled water is “distance.” Social psychologists refer to the phenomenon of “contagion,” whereby an object becomes abhorrent to members of the public by its close association with a known source of disgust and hatred. A famous example is the jacket that was once worn by Adolph Hitler. That knowledge is enough to make the jacket practically untouchable to most people who are aware of the history of the Holocaust, no matter how frequently and thoroughly the jacket may have been washed and disinfected. Recycled water has the potential to be associated with the raw material from which it was produced – sewage – which is somewhat universally regarded as “disgusting” and as “something to be avoided.” This association diminishes with “distance.” Distance can be provided with the length of time between irrigation and harvest, travel from the field to the processing shed, transformation in the food processing system, blending with produce from other fields, and presentation at the grocery store without reference to the source of irrigation water, as is the common practice.” [SAFETY AND SUITABILITY OF RECYCLED WATER FOR IRRIGATION OF EDIBLE CROPS, David W. York, Robert Holden, Bahman Sheikh, Larry Parsons, http://www.bahmansheikh.com/pdf_files/Food_Safety.pdf ]

Increasing recognition of the need for better stakeholder engagement Given the number of water reuse projects where the public has resorted to political action and prevented water reuse projects are being implemented, there is a growing recognition of the importance of more and better community engagement. Advertising campaigns with slogans like “toilet to tap” and “sewage beverage” have killed promising projects in a very short period of time.

“ The pre-existing conditions for a change in paradigm are that a large and diffuse group of stakeholders is involved, and that no single organization or person has the capacity to implement and upscale the ‘technology’ required for sustainable wastewater use. The stakeholders differ, depending on whether wastewater use is spontaneous or planned, but involve in general: water users, farmers, consumers (of food grown with wastewater), national and local level authorities (responsible for agriculture, irrigation, sanitation, public health and environment), local level planning authorities where the technology will be put in place and various other actors with a stake, depending on the context of adoption.

Increasing recognition of the need for better stakeholder engagement requires that water service providers (water providers, wastewater agencies, irrigation agencies) consider participatory planning, shifting the attention from public acceptance of predetermined technological options towards ways in which that public participation can be successfully institutionalized. Participatory institutions encourage the development of shared values amongst diverse stakeholder groups and lead to innovative solutions for dealing with water management. [Risk and Governance in Water Recycling Public Acceptance Revisited, Stenekes et al, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Volume 31 Number 2, March 2006 ]

Sometimes opposition can be overcomeThe Redwood City Recycled Water Project faced intense local opposition from a small but determined group of citizens who objected to the use of recycled water from a public health and safety perspective, particularly in areas where children play. In response to this opposition, the City Council eventually formed a community task force and empowered them to


help develop a solution to the City’s water supply problem.

“Although the project was technically solid and backed by a dedicated team of cooperating public agencies, implementation of the recycled water program had its share of controversy. This kind of atmosphere has held up a number of similar projects, but Redwood City addressed public concerns and included the community through an honest and genuine reassessment of the project. By using this approach, the City was able to defuse criticism, bring about the changes desired by the community, and affirm the safety and need for a recycled water project. [Redwood City Begins Delivery of Recycled Water-Kennedy/Jenks Consultants.com]

Some businesses eager for water reuse“As the Redwood City Recycled Water Project team set out to sign up new landscape irrigation

customers, one customer eagerly inquired if recycled water could be used beyond the reaches of their green lawns. A local hotel, a San Francisco Bay Area franchise of an international chain, approached the City with the request to use recycled water in various commercial and industrial applications at the site, some of which push the comfort zone of regulatory approval. In addition to the more common commercial and industrial recycled water applications of toilet flushing, cooling, and the less common laundry application, the Hotel is interested in using recycled water in their swimming pool and automatic dishwasher....In 2005, the Hotel used nearly 18.5 million gallons of water. Replacing drinking water with recycled water in toilet flushing, cooling, laundry, dish washing and the swimming pool would reduce the potable water demand by about 900,000 gallons per year, a demand reduction of nearly 5%. .” [Pushing The Limits Of Recycled Water Use In California - Sink or Swim? -Presented at the California Section WateReuse Conference, Palm Springs, CA, March 2007)

What are the acceptable versus non-acceptable uses of treated wastewater?Specifically, the closer the recycled water is to human contact or ingestion, the more people are opposed to using the water. Non-potable water reuse for golf courses, parks, and industries are generally accepted by the community.

Australian Guidelines for Water Reuse list the following uses as acceptable:

Agricultural uses

� horticulture, trees/woodlots, pasture/fodder, dairy pasture, lucerne, cotton, flowers, orchard, nursery, vegetables, viticulture, hydroponics, turf farm, cane fields, grain cropping

Fire control uses

� controlling fires � testing and maintenance of fire control

systems � training facilities for fire fighting

Managed aquifer recharge

� In a number of schemes, stormwater is collected, stored in aquifers and then extracted for use for municipal irrigation. Aquifers could also be used to store treated sewage as part of recycling schemes.

Municipal uses


� irrigation of public parks and gardens, roadsides, sporting facilities (including golf courses) � road making and dust control � street cleaning

Residential and commercial property uses

� in-building (toilet flushing) � garden watering, car washing � water features and systems (ponds, fountains, cascades) � utility washing (paths, vehicles, fences etc)

Industrial and commercial uses

� cooling water � process water � washdown water

Environmental uses

� streams and creeks � rivers � lakes and dams

National Guidelines for Water Recycling:

[Managing Health and Environmental Risks, Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Environment Protection and Heritage Council, Australian Health Ministers’ Conference, November 2006, pp. 13-14]

2.3 Fundamental flaws in traditional models of consultationDiscourse in these controversial projects was often dominated by the few true believers on both sides, often with extreme views, and is usually competitive and antagonistic as opposed to a rational debate in search of the truth. This section of the report is dedicated to insights that avoid these destructive outcomes.

Decide, announce and defend (DAD) model doesn’t work The traditional approach of implementing water reuse by means of a “decide, announce and defend” policy has now been commonly acknowledged as ineffective. The strategy of extensive public education and outreach programs after the project’s conception is also shown to be inadequate.

“In its meeting with us, the college was using a classic model of community interaction known in public relations circles as “decide, announce, defend.” In this model, the opportunity for community involvement comes only after decisions have already been made. Even though an organization may profess to seek community involvement in decision-making, what it really wants (as the community is quick to perceive) is community approval of its decision. The “decide, announce, defend” model has met the test of time. And failed. Again and again, organizations have learned that, when they make decisions that affect the community, they must involve the community during the decision-making process, not afterward. To do otherwise is to lose the community’s trust.” [Our Neighbors, Our Future, FERMI News, Volume 24, Friday, May 18, 2001]


‘’One of the things about [adding recycled water to drinking supplies] is it’s emotional and there’s a lot of things that need to be considered to ensure public health,’’ he said. ‘’You don’t want to race it, so let’s start the discussion now so nobody feels as though they are being blindsided.’’ Two previous attempts to add recycled sewage to drinking supplies in Australia have failed, and Mr Mollenkopf said both campaigns fell victim to politicisation and a lack of calm public debate. [ Sewage key to drinking water plans, PETER KER, March 8, 2010 http://www.theage.com.au]

“While the Decide-Announce-Defend approach is commonplace worldwide, there are exceptions. The notion that stakeholders and concerned citizens ought to participate in the first round of decisions about what to build, where to build, and how to build is the rule in some situations. And when it is pursued, something surprising often happens. Proponents don” t find themselves under attack (i.e. there” s nothing to attack since decisions have not been made). Conversations often take the form of joint problem- solving. Reasoned conversation replaces the circus-like atmosphere of the typical public hearing. Collaboration can be confined to clearly delineated time periods. However, the key is to initiate stakeholder involvement as early as possible.”[New Approaches to Consensus Building and Speeding up Large-Scale Energy Infrastructure Projects, By Dr. Jonathan Raab and Professor Lawrence Susskind1, Conference: The Expansion of the German Transmission Grid, Gottingen University, Germany June 23, 2009, P. 9]

“Two major challenges face today’s water professionals. The first is finding solutions to increasingly complicated water resources problems. The second challenge is nontechnical. It is effective interaction with the public recognizing both the public’s increasingly elevated goals relative to water and the public’s growing understanding of water science and technology. The traditional DAD approach, that is, decide-announce-defend, is no longer appropriate. The much more progressive, and inclusive POP approach, that is, public owns project, is more likely to be effective given the changing nature of the public’s expectations and knowledge. A water resources planning or design effort that fails to include a public interaction program plans to fail.” [DAD IS OUT, POP IS IN, Stuart G. Walesh, Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Volume 35 Issue 3, June 2007, Pages 535 - 544

The “deficit model” of public knowledgeAnother dominant portrayal of the causes of controversies is the notion that there is a gap between scientific knowledge and the public understanding of science. This has been coined the “deficit model” of public knowledge as it presupposes that the public has not comprehended the available scientific and technical information.

“The deficit model of scientific understanding assumes that the public’s knowledge of scientific discourse and research is non-existent. The public, as Jane Gregory and Steve Miller point out are “empty vessels” (Gregory and Miller, 2000: 17) or “blank slates” that need to be informed by a knowledgeable, hierarchical scientific community. It is the public’s deficit of knowledge that the scientist aims to fill with simple, generic instructions, commands and insights.

Of course, this notion has a huge variety of differing outcomes in social situations ranging from the


public’s understanding of the link between lung cancer and smoking (Dunwoody, Friedman and Rogers, 1999: 50), to the effects of nuclear attack in the 1950s and 60s to the current interest in mobile phone technology and health matters. The deficit model sees the public as being very much the receiver of scientific knowledge concerning only areas that might be of use to them; in this way it is inextricably linked to concepts such as the welfare state and post-war ideological notions of the state’s relationship to society.

As Anderson (2002) states, the deficit model also suggests mistrust of and lack of interest in science and scientific research by the public. Spurred on, perhaps, by the recent exponential advances in scientific discovery, the public is sometimes seen as being alienated by the scientific community’s own successes. In order for there to be a reasonable working knowledge of science based tools, in computing for instance, or concerns, as in health, there must first be a basis for understanding, a basis that can only come about when interest is aroused.” [http://www.modelanswer.co.uk/sociology/essays/deficit-model.php]

In the case of water reuse, the supporters of water reuse argue that the knowledge deficit relates to the lack of acceptance of recycling by the public despite the “facts” that show personal contact with recycled water to be safe. The supporters see the solution in terms of providing more and better high-quality information, including information about health risks. The problem with deficit theory is the assumption that communities who do not accept certain technological solutions (or who want a wider set of options) are basing this on ignorance. Often this is not the case.

“As researchers, these days we are exhorted to take part in “public engagement” and “public dialogue”, rather than “public understanding of science” (aka PUS) activities. PUS died because it relied on something called the “deficit model”. The idea behind the deficit model is this: if the public are not enthusiastic about a science topic (e.g. GM), it is because they lack knowledge of it. So if you just address that “knowledge deficit” by giving them more information about the science involved, then - hey presto! - you will win them over. Unfortunately, the deficit model does not work. To know science is not necessarily to love it. As the debate over GM showed, giving people more information about the science involved usually led to them holding a more nuanced view on the topic, rather than converting them into supporters of the technology. All in all, the deficit model was rather patronising. People’s views are not necessarily determined by their knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of the science involved, but often shaped by other, wider social concerns - such as corporate control of the food chain, in the case of GM.[The “deficit model” is alive and well, on BBC Newsnight Posted by Jon Copley on December 17, 2009 -http://connectingscience.ning.com]

The “soft underbelly” of water reuse is public perception of risk The Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling - Managing Health and Environmental Risks (2006) lists the following potential hazards found in sewage:

Conventional � Suspended solids � Biochemical oxygen demand � Total organic carbon � Ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, total nitrogen � Phosphorus � Metals


� Surfactants � Organic chemicals � Pesticides � Total dissolved solids/salinity � Bacteria � Helminths � Protozoa � Viruses

Emerging � Prescription and non-prescription drugs — antipyretic, antibiotics, antacids, antiinflammatory,etc � Home care products � Veterinary and human antibiotics � Industrial and household products � Sex and steroidal hormones � Other endocrine disrupters (hormonally active agents) � Water disinfection byproducts — N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)

Walkerton is still part of the public psyche Starting May 15, 2000, many residents of the town of about 5,000 began to simultaneously experience

bloody diarrhea, gastrointestinal infections and other symptoms of E. coli infection. For days the Walkerton Public Utilities Commission insisted the water supply was “OK” despite being in possession of laboratory tests that had found evidence of contamination. On May 21, an escalation in the number of patients with similar symptoms finally spurred the region’s Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Murray McQuigge, to issue a boil water advisory, warning residents not to drink the water. At least seven people died directly from drinking the E. coli contaminated water, who might have been saved if the Walkerton Public Utilities Commission had admitted to contaminated water sooner, and about 2,500 became ill. [Walkerton Tragedy From Wikipedia]

Given the Walkerton experience with contaminated drinking water, stakeholders/public are very sensitive to water quality issues and public health. Traditional methods of public consultation will not meet the test of stakeholder/public requirements of proof.

Integrating the lessons from risk communicationThe following is reprinted from an Environmental Protection Agency pamphlet and is based on the work of Vincent T. Covello and Frederick H. Allen. We have included these 7 rules to illustrate the need to create a new paradigm for engaging the stakeholders/public on water reuse schemes/proposals. Although Covello’s Rules were designed for crisis situations, if one were to integrate them into the engagement process for examining water reuse proposals, imagine how meanignful the process would be.

1 Accept and Involve the Public as a Legitimate Partner

� A basic tenet of risk communication in a democracy is that people and communities have a right to participate in decisions that affect their lives, their property, and the


things they value. � Guidelines: Demonstrate your respect for the public and underscore the sincerity of your effort

by involving the community early, before important decisions are made. Involve all parties that have an interest or a stake in the issue under consideration. If you are a government employee, remember that you work for the public. If you do not work for the government, the public still holds you accountable.

� Points to Consider: The goal of risk communication in a democracy should be to produce an informed public that is involved, interested, reasonable, thoughtful, solution-oriented, and collaborative; it should not be to diffuse public concerns or replace action.

2 Plan Carefully and Evaluate your Efforts

� Risk communication will be successful only if carefully planned. � Guidelines: Begin with clear, explicit risk communication objectives— such as providing

information to the public, motivating individuals to act, stimulating response to emergencies, or contributing to the resolution of conflict. Evaluate the information you have about the risk and know its strengths and weaknesses. Classify and segment the various groups in your audience. Aim your communications at specific subgroups in your audience. Recruit spokespeople who are good at presentation and interaction. Train your staff—including technical staff—in communication skills; reward outstanding performance. Whenever possible, pretest your messages. Carefully evaluate your efforts and learn from your mistakes.

� Points to Consider: 1. There is no such entity as “the public;”

instead, there are many publics, each with its own interests, needs, concerns, priorities, preferences, and organization.

2. Different risk communication goals, audiences, and media require different risk communication strategies.

3 Listen to the Public’s Specific Concerns

� If you do not listen to people, you cannot expect them to listen to you. Communication is a two-way activity.

� Guidelines: Do not make assumptions about what people know, think, or want done about risks. Take the time to find out what people are thinking: use techniques such as interviews, focus groups, and surveys. Let all parties that have an interest or a stake in the issue be heard. Identify with your audience and try to put yourself in their place. Recognize people’s emotions. Let people know that you understand what they said, addressing their concerns as well as yours. Recognize the “hidden agenda,” symbolic meanings, and broader economic or political considerations that often underlie and complicate the task of risk communication.

� Points to Consider: People in the community are often more concerned about such issues as trust, credibility, competence, control, voluntariness,fairness, caring, and compassion than about mortality statistics and the details of quantitative risk


assessment.4 Be Honest, Frank, and Open

� In communicating risk information, trust and credibility are your most precious assets. � Guidelines: State your credentials; but do not ask or expect to be trusted by the public. If you

do not know an answer or are uncertain, say so. Get back to people with answers. Admit mistakes. Disclose risk information as soon as possible (emphasizing any reservations about reliability). Do not minimize or exaggerate the level of risk. Speculate only with great caution. If in doubt, lean toward sharing more information, not less—or people may think you are hiding something. Discuss data uncertainties, strengths and weaknesses— including the ones identified by other credible sources. Identify worst-case estimates as such, and cite ranges of risk estimates when appropriate.

� Points to Consider: Trust and credibility are difficult to obtain. Once lost they are almost impossible to regain completely.

5 Coordinate and Collaborate with other Credible Sources

� Allies can be effective in helping you communicate risk information. � Guidelines: Take time to coordinate all inter-organizational and intra-organizational

communications. Devote effort and resources to the slow, hard work of building bridges with other organizations. Use credible and authoritative intermediaries. Consult with others to determine who is best able to answer questions about risk. Try to issue communications jointly with other trustworthy sources (for example, credible university scientists, physicians, or trusted local officials).

� Points to Consider: Few things make risk communication more difficult than conflicts or public disagreements with other credible sources.

6 Meet the Needs of the Media

� The news media are prime transmitters of information on risk; they play a critical role in setting agendas and in determining outcomes.

� Guidelines: Be open with and accessible to reporters. Respect their deadlines. Provide risk information tailored to the needs of each type of media (for example, graphics and other visual aids for television). Prepare in advance and provide background materials on complex risk issues. Do not hesitate to follow up on stories with praise or criticism, as warranted. Try to establish long-term relationships of trust with specific editors and reporters.

� Points to Consider: The media are frequently more interested in politics than in risk; more interested in simplicity than in complexity; more interested in danger than in safety.

7 Speak Clearly and with Compassion

� Technical language and jargon are useful as professional shorthand. But they are barriers to successful communication with the public.

� Guidelines: Use simple, nontechnical language. Be sensitive to local norms, such as speech and dress. Use vivid, concrete images that communicate on a personal level. Use examples and anecdotes that make technical risk data come alive. Avoid distant, abstract, unfeeling language about deaths, injuries, and illnesses. Acknowledge and respond (both in words and with actions) to emotions that people express- anxiety, fear, anger, outrage, helplessness. Acknowledge and respond to the distinctions that the public views as important in evaluating risks, e.g., voluntariness, controllability, familiarity, dread, origin (natural or man-made), benefits, fairness, and catastrophic potential. Use risk comparisons to help put risks in perspective; but avoid comparisons that ignore distinctions that people consider important. Always try to include a discussion of actions that are under way or can be taken. Tell people what you cannot do. Promise only what you can do, and be sure to do what you promise.

� Points to Consider:


1. Regardless of how well you communicate risk information, some people will not be satisfied.2. Never let your efforts to inform people about risks prevent you from acknowledging- and

saying- that any illness, injury, or death is a tragedy.3. If people are sufficiently motivated, they are quite capable of understanding complex risk

information, even if they may not agree with you.[Environmental Protection Agency pamphlet, Vincent T. Covello and Frederick H. Allen, reprinted by

Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 2004 ]

Risk communication is not a variation of social marketingPhilip Kotler is credited with inventing the concept of social marketing - I.e. marketing concepts being used to sell ideas, attitudes or behaviours. Social marketing seeks to influence social behaviors, not to benefit the marketer, but to benefit the target audience and the general society. This technique has been used extensively in health programs, especially for contraceptives, smoking cessation and other changes in behaviours for healthy lifestyles. Like all marketing, social marketing begins with the needs and wants of the target audience and then through a mix of product, price, place and promotion, a campaign is created and launched to persuade the target audience to change their attitude and/or behaviour. Risk communication is fundamentally different.

“In the past, risk communication was defined as a one-way transmission of expert knowledge to nonexperts. But this simple image has been replaced. Today, risk communication is seen as an interactive process of exchange of information and opinion among individuals, groups, and institutions. it involves multiple messages about the nature of risk and other messages, not strictly about risk, that express concerns, opinions, or reactions to risk messages or to legal and institutional arrangements for risk management.

15. Risk perception, or how people judge and react to risk, deals with human values regarding attributes of hazards and benefits. Studies of risk perception typically present technologies, activities. or substances and ask people to consider the risks they feel each presents and to rate them. Analysis of such studies show that people’s ratings are affected by certain attributes-such as the potential to harm large numbers of people at once, personal uncontrollability dreaded effects, effects on children reversibility, and perceived involuntariness of exposure—that make those hazards more serious to the public than hazards that lack those attributes. The fact that hazards differ dramatically in their qualitative aspects helps explain why certain technologies or activities, such as nuclear power, evoke more serious public opposition than others, such as motorcycle riding, that cause many more injuries and fatalities. This means that risk perception is value-laden. When lay and expert values differ, reducing different kinds of hazard to a common numerical rating (such as number of fatalities per year) and presenting comparisons only on that metric have great potential to produce misunderstanding and conflict and to engender mistrust of expertise. [National Research Council, 1989.]

Public confidence in government, experts and technology is continuing to erode As a number of studies reported, trust and confidence in public agencies and officials is in decline in


America. Belief that even the best technologies can remove all impurities and pathogens from wastewater is in decline.

“ In addition to these site specific factors that may contribute to shaping the public’s perception and the nature of their participation in water reuse decision-making, there are some significant national and regional trends in the U.S. In general, trust and confidence in public agencies and officials is in decline in America[6] – this appears to also be true for the wastewater utilities. Likewise, belief that even the best technologies can remove all impurities and pathogens from waste water is in decline, at least in California.[7] Furthermore while the public has reported trusting university-based scientists and the medical community on technical and health issues related to water reuse, preliminary survey evidence showed people trusting their own personal impressions of water quality (often based upon the water’s cloudiness or turbidity) more than these experts.” [Public Perception and Participation in Water Reuse, Troy W. Hartley Department of Resource Economics and Development, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH,]

High correlation between public perception of risk and trust in authoritiesIn 2008, the Arizona Water Institute commissioned the Social Research Laboratory at Northern Arizona University to conduct a telephone survey of Arizona residents. The survey focused on identifying public perceptions regarding wastewater reuse and how these may affect current and future utilization of the resource.

“Additionally, the survey revealed that almost two-thirds of Arizona residents have concerns about reclaimed water which is not surprising. However, it was determined that these concerns can be alleviated for respondents by providing “better information about reclaimed water”, “stronger oversight of treatment plants” and “better wastewater treatment”. Our results mimic similar studies in which factors such as risk perceptions or organizational trust are potentially more receptive to change.�High�correlations�between�Risk�and�Trust�suggest�that�if�one�is�able�to�exert�change�in�people’s�risk�and�trust�perceptions,�one�might�also�promote�change�in variables otherwise less receptive to change.” [SURVEY OF PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS REGARDING WATER REUSE IN ARIZONA: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES, Channah Rock et al. Soil, Water, and Environmental Science Department, University of Arizona, 2008]

A recent survey of South East Queensland Australia was undertaken to identify and provide a baseline measurement of the psychological drivers of the community’s intended behaviour in relation to drinking Purified Recycled Water (PRW) to provide for the informed design of community engagement and education, and the monitoring of any shifts in community attitudes, values and intended behaviours over time and with increased experience.

“Greater levels of trust in authorities involved with the recycled water scheme lead directly to:

� lower perceived health risks associated with the recycled water scheme; and

� lower perceptions of the threat of system failure.”

[Community Acceptability of the Indirect Potable Use of Purified Recycled Water in South East Queensland and Preferences for Alternative Water Sources: A Baseline Measure, Blair E. Nancarrow, et al, November 2007


Social marketing may not be as promising as some propose

The early approach to implementing water reuse projects often viewed public acceptance as the principal ‘obstacle’ to implementing any recycling projects. Subsequently the research following this view was limited to finding ways to persuade people to accept recycled water.

San Diego water repurification project

The downfall of the city of San Diego’s water repurification project probably took the many agencies involved by surprise. At the 1997 Beneficial Reuse of Water and Biosolids Conference, Katz and Tennyson, the public relations agents for the project, described it as having all the main ingredients for success. In the following year, the project was illustrated as having very successful public information and outreach programs in a publication produced by the Water Environment Federation (WEF) and the American Water Works Association

The San Diego City Council and the San Diego County Water Authority understood the importance of public acceptance and therefore embarked on a comprehensive research project to better understand the public willingness to use recycled water and to identify potential issues that needed to be addressed (Katz & Tennyson, 1997).

In a telephone survey of more than 300 San Diego residents, participants expressed a significant level of interest and concern about water supply, quality and treatment options (Katz & Tennyson, 1997). A high number of respondents also indicated support for the use of recycled water and preferred the term ‘purified water’ to reclaimed or recycled water. The research also found the participants to be supportive of using repurified water for drinking, washing and cooking once it was fully explained to them. Furthermore, focus groups and one-to-one interviews with community leaders also indicated favourable results when the concept was explained (Katz & Tennyson, 1997). To further assure San Diego residents, the Authority and the Council submitted their water repurification project proposal to the scrutiny of an Independent Advisory Panel and a citizens’ review committee which later concluded that recycled water was an acceptable option, and it would provide a much needed source for the region (Wegner-Gwidt, 1998). Additional public outreach work was also undertaken, these included brochures and related fact sheets, video presentations about the project, feature stories in newspapers, and other media outlets, and a telephone enquiry line.

Despite the strong support from a wide variety of community organisations, the project became entangled in political campaigns which eventually caused the whole project to be halted. The campaigns claimed that the city intended to take wastewater from affluent communities to distribute as drinking water to those less affluent, and health dangers from the project were specifically highlighted (Recycled Water Task Force, 2003). The State Department of Health Services subsequently called a hearing for the project. Hundreds of worried residents turned up to the hearing after seeing advertised posters covered with the slogan “Toilet to Tap” (Recycled Water Task Force, 2003). In the end, the project was put on indefinite hold by the San Diego City Council (US Bureau of Reclamation, 2000).[LITERATURE REVIEW OF FACTORS INFLUENCING PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF WATER REUSE, Murni Po, Juliane D. Kaercher and Blair E. Nancarrow, CSIRO, Technical Report 54/03, December 2003, pp. 9-11)


It is now generally accepted that social marketing or persuasion is of limited value in influencing people to use recycled water. Yet some people still describe the challenges in marketing terms

#1 Issue for Water Reuse- Negative Branding –

� Sewer water � Toilet to Tap � Toilet to Turf

[Reclaimed Water Trends Nationally and Internationally, Guy Carpenter, WateReuse Association Arizona Governor’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Water Sustainability February 5, 2010]

We don’t know enough about public acceptance. Despite the critical nature of community attitudes to recycled water to the success of projects, they are often little understood. No research has investigated the different factors that influence public perceptions of water reuse and how these factors mediate people’s decision-making processes. Further information is required to ensure the successful implementation of recycled water policy and to ensure sustainable management of water resources is achieved.

“When we look at the water supply alternatives, water reuse is a universal solution that is not limited by climate, geographical location, or water supply situation. It would seem to be the perfect solution!! And for many applications it is widely accepted. However, for the high end reuse options, i.e. indirect potable reuse and direct potable reuse, we have the technology, but we don’t always have the stomach for it – literally. Our biggest challenge right now may not be the technology but rather public acceptance. So as we discuss the new frontiers for reuse – we may be our own worst enemy. We have spent millions of dollars on research to improve the technology and very little on public and political education as illustrated by the push back on IPR in Brisbane now that the water crisis is not as intensive and in many places within the US. Conversely, in Singapore there has been tremendous effort with respect to public education regarding water and its value which is validated by their successful New Water program. As we go forward and refine the technologies, we need to remember the psychological elements and spend time and effort on public education to elevate reuse as an accepted concept for all applications.” [http://siwwdiary.com/2009/06/25/what-are-the-barriers-to-water-reuse/]

In search of new paradigms for engaging communities on controversial projectsA German conference on the Expansion of the German Transmission Grid at Gottingen University in 2009 explored better practices for engaging stakeholders including federal, state, and local governments, as well as other interested stakeholders such as utilities and power generators, transmission owners, businesses, NGOs, and citizens. Their starting position was that better practices were required.

“In 1990, Professor Susskind developed # The Facility Siting Credo: Guidelines for an Effective Facility Siting Process$ 19 based on a national workshop he organized with Professor Howard Kunreuther to explore the application of consensus building techniques to the siting of controversial facilities. The Credo summarized the results of an extensive literature review and interviews with leading professional planners. According to the Credo, when planning and building Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs), every effort ought to be made to meet the following objectives:

1. Institute a broad based participatory process2. Achieve agreement that the status quo is unacceptable3. Seek consensus4. Work to develop trust5. Choose the solution that best addresses the problem


6. Guarantee that stringent safety standards will be met7. Fully address negative aspects of the facility8. Make the host community better off9. Use contingent agreements10. Seek acceptable sites through a volunteer process11. Consider a competitive siting process12. Work for geographic fairness13. Set realistic timetables14. Keep multiple options open at all times”[New Approaches to Consensus Building and Speeding up Large-Scale Energy Infrastructure

Projects By Dr. Jonathan Raab and Professor Lawrence Susskind1, Conference: The Expansion of the German Transmission Grid, Gottingen University, Germany,June 23, 2009]

“In 1994, Dr. Raab published a book explaining how consensus building techniques could be applied to utility regulation. It was entitled Using Consensus Building to Improve Utility Regulation.20 Dr. Raab concludes with eight principles for applying consensus building to both adjudicatory and regulatory issues covering the gamut from upstream issues such as the formation of broad energy policy to downstream issues such as approving and siting specific projects.

� Eight Principles for Consensus Building in Electric Utility Regulation1. Initiate consensus building as early as possible2. Include all stakeholders3. Secure direct involvement of the PUC [regulators] whenever possible4. Provide adequate resources5. Do not exclude contentious issues from consensus building efforts6. Consider assisted negotiation7. Structure consensus building processes to supplement traditional adjudicator and

rulemaking procedures8. Modify traditional procedures to better accommodate consensus building opportunities”

[New Approaches to Consensus Building and Speeding up Large-Scale Energy Infrastructure Projects, op. cit. P 8]

Although our project deals with water reuse and not the siting of energy projects, the Credo and the 8 Principles have startling insights that are applicable to water reuse projects..

Public acceptance of water reuse seems to be higher when : � The degree of human contact is minimal – i.e. I don’t have to drink it, it doesn’t’ affect my

drinking water � Protection of public health is clear � Protection of the environment is a clear benefit of the reuse � Promotion of water conservation is a clear benefit of the reuse � Cost of treatment and distribution technologies and systems is reasonable � Perception of wastewater as the source of reclaimed water is minimal � Awareness of water supply problems in the community is high � Role of reclaimed water in overall water supply scheme is clear � Perception of the quality of reclaimed water is high � Confidence in local management of public utilities and technologies is high

[Public Perception and Participation in Water Reuse, Troy W. Hartley Department of Resource Economics and Development, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH,]


2.4 Our conclusions from other jurisdictionsThe CCME described Canada’s experience with water reuse as” on a relatively small scale, and mostly in isolated cases”.

Typical examples of such reuse include agricultural cropland irrigation in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, golf course and landscape irrigation (B.C., Alberta, the feasibility was studied in PEI), experimental housing (Ontario, Nova Scotia, B.C.), and reuse of wastewater at isolated facilities such as isolated resorts, truck stops (B.C., Ontario).”[ Linking Water Science to Policy”: Water reuse and recycling, Workshop Summary, Canadian Council of Minister of Environment, May, 2002]

As a result, we have had to rely on our research into other jurisdictions. As this section of the report points out, there are significant warnings, cautions and lessons that we have taken to heart. We have developed the following conclusions and guidance for our own survey into Lake Simcoe stakeholders/public.

1. Stakeholder/public acceptability has become the major barrier/challenge to water reuse schemes/proposals

2. Water reuse projects automatically begin with a stigma or handicap - The Yuck factor � Galvanized by the yuck factor, opponents in Redwood City, California, delayed a wastewater

reclamation project for nearly two years. And about six hours north, in Fountain Valley, a group dubbed the Revolting Grandmas led opposition to the Orange County Groundwater Replenishment System, which is the largest wastewater reclamation plant in the world. Responding to opponents’ demands, engineers now pump highly treated wastewater leaving the plant into an underground basin, where it filters through layers of sand and gravel before being piped to the homes and businesses that use it. Ironically, the water coming out of the basin isn’t as clean as the treated water going into it, according to an article in the 8 August 2008 New York Times Magazine—during its trip through the natural filters it picks up trace elements and contaminants that must later be removed by the water utility. The underground filtration step is taken, says director of recharge operations Adam Hutchinson, strictly to allay psychological concerns. [The Yuck Factor When Disgust Meets Discovery, Charles W. Schmidt, Environ Health Perspect. 2008 December; 116(12): A524–A527.]

� But the yuck factor could also be said to serve a useful purpose. Excrement does pose health risks, and the public is therefore wise to ask questions about the safety of drinking reclaimed wastewater. Likewise, genetic technologies have the capacity to fundamentally alter life as we know it, in some cases with uncertain benefits. By giving pause to technological progress, the yuck factor opens new opportunities for dialogue between scientists and the public. In some cases, that dialogue might show that a technology’s benefits outweigh the repugnance that goes with it. In others, it pushes scientists to make a better case for why a given technology should be pursued at all. [The Yuck Factor When Disgust Meets Discovery, Charles W. Schmidt, Environ Health Perspect. 2008 December; 116(12): A524–A527.]

3. Water reuse projects also suffer from negative branding by opponents - Sewer water, Toilet-to-tap

4. Any water reuse scheme is likely to become controversial. Even though non-potable appears to be more acceptable, there are sufficient examples where even non-potable became contentious. � “...in Fountain Valley, a group dubbed the Revolting Grandmas led opposition to the Orange

County Groundwater Replenishment System, which is the largest wastewater reclamation plant in the world. Responding to opponents’ demands, engineers now pump highly treated wastewater leaving the plant into an underground basin, where it filters through layers of sand and gravel before being piped to the homes and businesses that use it. The underground filtration step is taken, says director of recharge operations Adam Hutchinson, strictly to allay psychological concerns.” [The Yuck Factor When Disgust Meets Discovery, Charles W. Schmidt, op. cit]


5. Potable water reuse clearly is the most unacceptable scheme to stakeholders/public. Any projects that propose water reuse for drinking, bathing, cooking appear destined to crash on the rocks of public opposition. It is essential from the get-go that we declare potable uses as not even on the table for research purposes.

6. Non-potable water reuse is generally more acceptable to the stakeholders/public but this support is by no means universal.

7. Protection of public health appears to be the source of most controversies involving water reuse. After all, regardless of level of treatment, water reuse is about sewage.

8. Australian Guidelines identified the following “Emerging” hazards of sewage: � Prescription and non-prescription drugs — antipyretic, antibiotics, antacids, antiinflammatory,etc � Home care products � Veterinary and human antibiotics � Industrial and household products � Sex and steroidal hormones � Other endocrine disrupters (hormonally active agents) � Water disinfection byproducts — N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)

9. The Walkerton experience has increased residents and stakeholders concerned about protecting water quality in Ontario… this negative legacy should be expected to cloud/influence attitudes and opinions about water reuse projects

10. If the major controversies with water reuse focus on public health issues, then there is a need to integrate risk communication theory and practice into any constructive engagement process.

11. Risk communication is not a variation of social marketing. Risk communications is about raising the level of understanding of relevant issues or actions and satisfying those involved that they are adequately informed within the limits of available knowledge.

12. Public consultation/involvement has been based on the “deficit model” -better known as the “public needs to be educated and then they will see that we are right and then they agree with us”. Needless to say, this thinking is flawed when it comes to technical/scientific issues involving public and environmental health.

13. Public confidence in governments, experts and water reuse technologies has been on a downward trend as projects and testimonies about safety have been found wanting. There is great public suspicion of and a lack of trust in our governing institutions and the people around them.

14. This is an especially unfortunate phenomenon since there is a high correlation between public perception of risk and trust in the authorities.

15. This lack of trust is further exacerbated by an almost universal adoption of the DAD model by proponents of water reuse schemes. The “Decide - Announce - Defend” model has been found to be totally ineffective when one is dealing with controversial or potentially controversial infrastructure projects. These “LULUs” ( locally unwanted land uses) require a different model.

16. Proponents using the DAD model invariably resort to social marketing tools and techniques to position their proposal in the best light and proceed to try to persuade the populace or target audience.

17. Given the failures of many water reuse project to achieve public acceptance, a number of authors are calling for new models and paradigms of consensus development and collaboration with stakeholders/public.

18.. We don’t know enough about public values, interests regarding water and concepts like water reuse.


3.0 Stakeholder Sensitivity Analysis

3.1 Researching Watershed Stakeholders

Reusing treated wastewater is new to the watershedTo our knowledge, the concept of reusing treated wastewater has never been publicly tabled or discussed in the Lake Simcoe Watershed. As such we do not have any baseline data or anecdotal evidence about stakeholder/public attitudes regarding the acceptability or lack thereof for the concept of reusing treated wastewater.

Lack of awareness is a double-edged swordThis lack of visibility and probably awareness of the concept of reusing treated wastewater is also a benefit because it means that the issue has not been affected by the reports from and public reactions in other jurisdictions.

Given the experiences in other jurisdictions where water reuse projects have been quickly stigmatized by adverse media coverage and special interest group opposition, we were concerned about how to approach the public on this subject matter without naively or inadvertently falling victim to uninformed or irrational opinions before the public has been engaged in a meaningful dialogue.

One of the lessons is early involvement of the stakeholders/publicA number of studies and reports about public acceptance stressed the importance of involving the stakeholders/public “early in the process before any specific proposals are developed”. California’s Task Force on Recycled Water (2003)make the following recommendations on increased and meaningful involvement:

1. The public needs to be involved in all phases of project planning with opportunities for involvement in developing and selecting alternatives, not just to be informed of final decisions.

2. Members of the public need to be listened to and responded to with respect. Their values and needs should be incorporated into the decision criteria. Their fears and concerns should be considered real and valid and mitigated with accurate information and, if necessary, changes in project design. Interaction should follow common courtesies of appropriate language, body gestures, and cordiality to keep focus on project issues.

3. Adequate and understandable information needs to be disseminated in many forums on proposed projects and water supply issues in general.

4. Recycled water projects need to be justified on fundamental needs or community desires, such as an adequate and safe water supply or prevention of water pollution.


5. Principles of environmental justice need to be incorporated. The public expects that costs and benefits of projects should be equitably shared.

6. The public needs a broad understanding of water supply issues to have a context in which to evaluate recycled water.

The Task Force has developed recommendations for a value-based decision-making model to improve public participation at the local level, especially during project development. [ Page 22)

Exploratory research survey before any proposals are developedIn keeping with the advice from these other studies and task forces, we decided to undertake an exploratory research survey of stakeholder/public awareness, attitudes and opinions about the acceptability or lack thereof for the concept of reusing treated wastewater.

We deliberately labeled it a “Community Soundings” to reinforce with the stakeholders/public that no decisions have been made, no proposals are on the table. Our hope was that the stakeholders/public would interpret our use of the term “soundings” as figurative for “information or evidence ascertained as a preliminary step before deciding on a course of action”.

“ ..all interviewees felt that early public outreach was essential for all newly proposed schemes, and this (i) demonstrates openness and teamwork on behalf of the planner – developing a sense of trust between planner and recipient, and (ii) allows the planner to begin to spread the message about the project in advance of any detractors who might wish to promote a rather more negative side to the plans” [“Public Perception towards Water Recycling in California”, J. Bridgeman, 2009]

Not about drinking water!We also made an early strategic decision that reusing treated wastewater would not involve drinking water. As noted in earlier sections of this report, the public accepts the use of reclaimed water for a variety of purposes, but not drinking or other high contact uses.

People’s attitudes about the reuse of reclaimed water depend on the source and the intended purpose of the reuse, and nonpotable reuse is more acceptable than potable reuse. When drinking water is at issue, indirect potable reuse is more acceptable to the public than direct potable reuse because the water is perceived to be cleansed as it flows in a river, lake, or aquifer (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992). However, in general the public does not favor potable reuse. For instance, in research designed to determine the attitudes of Californians toward the use of reclaimed water, Bruvold (1976) measured attitudes toward 25 uses of reclaimed water, ranging from high contact uses such as drinking and bathing to low-contact uses such as irrigating golf courses and road construction.

To stress the point that reusing treated wastewater is not about potable uses, we created a graphic icon to make this point and placed it strategically in the Briefing Note and the Survey Questionnaire.

System Requirements for Reusing Purified Water from Wastewater Treatment Plants

Infrastructure requirements for “centralized system”

1. Treatment facility-York Region already treats the effluent from the wastewater treatment plants to what is called a tertiary level to increase the quality of the wastewater effluent. This step further reduces the level of organic chemicals, nutrients, pathogens, and suspended solids in the treated effluent.

2. Pumping Station may be required for the transport of untreated wastewater to the reclamation plant and for delivering purified water to the users via a transmission and distribution system.

3. Treatment water storage is needed to compensate for the differences in water production rate and the rate and time of use.

4. Transmission and distribution pipelines (often called purple pipes) to deliver water from the point of production to the users.

5. Metering is used to control the demand and provide the basis for charging for the amount used.

Briefing note

Exploring the Potential for Reusing Purified Water from Wastewater Treatment PlantsThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines wastewater reuse as, “using wastewater or reclaimed water from one application for another application… must be in compliance with applicable rules for a beneficial purpose (landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, aesthetic uses, industrial uses, and fire protection).”

Lake Simcoe Protection PlanOne of the key targets of the plan is the reduction of phosphorus entering the lake. There are current 14 municipal and 1 industrial wastewater treatment facilities within the Lake Simcoe watershed contributing to phosphorus loading to surface waters. In addition, the ground and surface

water quantity resources for the majority of subwatersheds within the basin have been deemed to be under stress as defined by the Source Water Protection criteria.

Water Conservation is Increasing but Not EnoughMunicipalities have developed incentive programs to get home owners to install

water efficient toilets, shower heads, etc. Communities have instituted bans on watering lawns and other restrictions on water use.

Increasing Costs of Wastewater TreatmentWastewater treatment plants are under increasing pressure to reduce the levels of nutrients they discharge into Lake Simcoe, in particular, phosphorus. The costs of new technologies to reduce phosphorus are increasing the costs of wastewater treatment.

We Use Drinking Water for Almost EverythingWe use highly treated, expensive drinking water for virtually all our water needs - Fire fighting, swimming pools, watering landscapes, industrial uses, etc.

While We are Wasting WastewaterNormally, wastewater from wastewater treatment plants is purified to an environmentally acceptable level and then pumped into some nearby stream, lake or other waterbody. In effect, “wasting” this potential source of water for beneficial uses.

Spring 2010

Landscape watering is one potentiaL water reuse


3.2 Survey Design

Community SpecificA number of case studies now make a strong case for researching and understanding the specific needs and values of the community being considered.

Another common thread from planning the three projects was the recognition of the need for any public outreach exercise to be stakeholder-specific. The City of San Diego planners did not address this important issue and now recognise it as being a mistake. Conversley, South Bay Water Recycling planners mapped out all key stakeholders from the outset, developing individual stakeholder plans for each and concentrating on the stakeholders’ own concerns . A consultant to the team described the need to develop a community profile, i.e. a comprehensive understanding of the recipient community. This is a fundamental point, which has been identified by academics as well as practitioners. [“Public Perception towards Water Recycling in California”, J. Bridgeman, 2009]

Town of GeorginaGeorgina is a growing mixed urban/rural municipality with Sutton and Keswick each having a wastewater treatment plant

Population in 2006 42,346 Interview Segments No. Of Interviews

Median age 39.0 Elected officials 2

Total private dwellings 15,260 Senior staff of the municipality 2

Number of census families

12,390 Sample of members of municipal committees

0

Median income families $71,054 Sample of residents 49

Households couple + children

5,320 Totals 53

Town of West Gwillumbury (Bradford)Bradford is also a growing community with a mixed urban/rural population. The Holland Marsh farming community is an integral feature of Bradford.

Population in 2006 24,039 Interview Segments No. Of Interviews

Total private dwellings 8,128 Elected officials 5

Private dwellings occupied

7,946 Senior staff of the municipality

2

Median income individual

31,466 Sample of members of municipal committees

0

Households couple + children

3,500 Sample of residents 14

Totals 21


City of BarrieBarrie is a major urban center in the watershed and is experiencing major growth and infrastructure needs

Population 128,430 Segments No. Of Interviews

Median age 35.4 Elected officials 1

Total private dwellings 48,196 Senior staff of the municipality

5

Median household income: $64,832 Sample of members of municipal committees

1

Sample of residents

10

Totals 17

Additional stakeholders interviewedSegments No. Of Interviews

Source Protection Committee for the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Region

10

PROPEL Committee and Original Stakeholder Advisory Committee for the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan

7

Totals 17

3.3 The survey questionnaireThe 10 page survey questionnaire was designed to elicit information on the following themes and issues:

Section 1: General Awareness and Knowledge � Who supplies the drinking water for your home? � Who supplies the wastewater disposal system for your

home? � Do you have a greywater reuse system in your home? � How much do you pay for water a year? � How familiar are you with the concept of reusing purified

water from wastewater treatment plants? � Do you think there is a need to reuse purified water

from wastewater treatment plants in the Lake Simcoe watershed?

� Do you think reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants is a good idea?

� How familiar are you with the following terms: - Potable water - Wastewater - Greywater - Reclaimed

Spring 2010

Exploring the Potential for Reusing Purified Water from wastewater treatment plants

The Start of an on-going dialogue with the CommunityThe Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority is undertaking a process to engage a cross-section of stakeholders in exploring public perceptions about reusing purified water.

This is a confidential survey of stakeholder attitudes in which we want to get a sample of people’s views and opinions about:

• Levels of stakeholder awareness of the concept of reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants.

• Stakeholder attitudes and opinions towards concept of reusing purified water

• Identification of acceptable and unacceptable uses of purified water

• Stakeholders rankings of the reasons for reusing purified water

• Types of information stakeholders need about reusing purified water and who do they trust to provide this information

• Method of engaging stakeholders in an on-going dialogue about reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants

Constructive EngagementOgilvie, Ogilvie & Company has been retained to design and facilitate this engagement process. AECOM has been retained to conduct the technical and financial feasibility studies.

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority is launching an exploratory study into the concept of reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants.

Concept of reusing Purified waterThis is a confidential survey of stakeholder attitudes about the concept of reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants for non-potable applications such as irrigation of non-food crops, watering public parks, cleaning streets, watering lawns, commercial carwashes, toilet/urinal flushing, etc.

Wasting drinking waterCurrently, these non-potable uses of water are often supplied by costly municipal drinking water which is purified/treated to high water quality standards. In effect, we are wasting our best water on these non-potable uses when we could be saving our best water and reducing the costs of municipal drinking water systems.

For non-potable water uses onlySimilar studies in the US, Australia and Europe have found significant acceptance of reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants for these

types of non-potable uses. However, they also found significant objections to reusing purified water for potable uses i.e.

water suitable on the basis of both health and aesthetic considerations for drinking or culinary purposes.

We have excluded drinking water, cooking and washing

Based on these other studies, we have excluded drinking water, cooking food or bathing/washing applications from the

concept of reusing purified water. We are only considering non-potable uses.

We want to find out what you think about this conceptYour answers will help us evaluate the public acceptability of the concept and if there is support for the concept,how one could go about developing a program for reusing purified water. On the other hand, if there is not enough support for the concept, we will have a better understanding of the stakeholder’s views and opinions. Either way, we need your thoughts and opinions on the matter.

For more information about this survey, please contact the following individuals:Robb Ogilvie Mike WaltersOgilvie, Ogilvie & Company Lake Simcoe Region Conservation AuthorityTel: 705.437.4271 Tel: 905.895.1281 ext 234Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]


- Recycled water - Blackwater - Stormwater - Aquifer recharge - Non-potable water

These questions were designed to provide a baseline on the respondents current situation regarding water and wastewater.

Section 2: Acceptable and Non-Acceptable UsesThis section of the questionnaire is perhaps the most important because it focusses on which uses are not acceptable versus acceptable. Answers to this question will enable a comparison to the studies from other jurisdictions.

� Please indicate which uses of purified water from wastewater treatment plants would be acceptable or not acceptable to you? � Agricultural Irrigation

- Food Crops - Non-Food Crops - Sod Farming - Commercial Nurseries

� Landscape Irrigation - Industrial Parks - Golf Courses - Public Parks/Athletic Fields - School Grounds

� Industrial and Commercial - Cooling Power Plants - Mixing Concrete - Gravel Washing - Equipment Cleaning - Dust Control - Air Conditioning - Laundries - Car Washes

� Municipal - Fire Fighting - Street Cleaning - Flushing Wastewater Pipes

� Recreational - Snow/Ice Making - Public Swimming Pools - Maintaining Pond Levels, Fountains,

etc � Environmental Restoration

- Stream Flow Augmentation - Wetland Enhancement - Fisheries Management

� Household - Toilet Flushing - Lawn/Garden Watering - Washing Cars, Fences, etc


- Swimming Pools

We also wanted to find out the underlying reason why the stakeholders/public would support reusing treated wastewater. Hence the following question:

� Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements... I would support reusing purified water… � because it is more environmentally sustainable than continuing to discharge treated wastewater

into streams and lakes � because it will reduce the need to expand wastewater treatment plants to meet growing

population needs in the watershed � because it will reduce the effluent going into the lakes and waterways � because it will reduce the amount of phosphorus and other nutrients going into Lake Simcoe � because it allows for the beneficial recycling of water and nutrients � Other reasons? (Please describe.)

Another major issue from the review of other jurisdictions is the stakeholder/public lack of faith and trust in the proponents of water reuse schemes. Hence, we designed the following question to obtain feedback on who stakeholders/public trust and to what degree.

� Whose opinions about a proposal to reuse purified water would you trust the most? � Conservation Authorities � Regional Governments � Local Municipalities � Provincial Government/Agencies � Federal Government/Agencies � Public Health Units � Special Interest Groups � Consultants � University Professors/Experts � Media (Newspapers, TV) � Internet

The literature on water reuse includes a multitude of terms to describe reusing treated wastewater. Since this project will eventually have to decide on a label, we asked respondents the following question:

� So far we have called the concept “reusing purified water”. Which of the following terms/labels creates the best image? � Reclaiming water for beneficial uses � Reclaiming water � Recycling water � Reusing wastewater � Reusing treated wastewater � Reusing wasted water � Reusing purified water � Other (Please specify)

The literature also suggests that there is a relationship between people who practice water conservation and their support for water reuse schemes. The following question is designed to give us some idea of the validity of this relationship between water conservation practices and acceptability of reusing treated wastewater.

� Which of the following water conservation measures do you practice?


� Saving water in the kitchen and laundry - Replacing normal kitchen faucets with faucet aerators. - Use our automatic dishwasher only for full loads. - We don’t let the faucet run while we clean vegetables. We rinse them in a stoppered sink or a

pan of clean water. - As appliances or fixtures wear out, we replace them with water-saving models. - Using a high efficiency water softener.

� Saving water in the bathroom - Replacing our existing toilet with a new low flush model. - Installing toilet water saving devices. Early closure toilet flappers or toilet dams. - Installing water saving showerheads. - Installing a bathroom faucet aerators to reduce the flow out by up to 50%.

� Saving water outside - We water our lawn at night and only when it needs it. - We reduced our water needs by planting drought-resistant trees and plants. - We use a broom – not a hose – to clean driveways and sidewalks. - We don’t run the hose while washing our car. We clean the car with a pail of soapy water and

just use the hose to rinse it off. - We use a cover when the pool is not in use to reduce evaporation.

Section 3: If the study finds out that reusing purified water is feasible and acceptable, then answers to the following questions would be helpful

� Studies in other jurisdictions have found that public acceptance of reusing purified water is high when the following conditions exist. From your perspective, do you agree or disagree with these conditions? � The degree of human contact is minimal, i.e. I don’t have to drink it, wash in it, etc. � Protection of public health is clear. � Protection of the environment is a clear benefit of reusing purified water. � Promotion of water conservation is a clear benefit of reusing purified water. � Cost of treatment and distribution technologies and systems is reasonable. � Awareness of water supply problems in the community is high. � Role of reusing purified water in the overall water supply scheme is clear. � Perception of the quality of reusing purified water is high. � Confidence in local management of public

utilities and technologies is high.

Since any centralized reuse scheme will involve costs, the survey asked a number of questions about the willingness of stakeholders/public to pay for these additional costs.

� Would you be prepared to pay a surcharge on your water bill for the cost of a centralized system for reusing purified water?

� If yes or maybe, how much of an annual surcharge would you be willing to pay?

� What do you think the biggest barriers are or would be to gaining public acceptance for reusing purified water?

Given the importance of early and on-going


involvement of the stakeholders/public in exploring, evaluating, developing, building and operating a water reuse scheme, the survey asked a number of questions about respondent’s preferences for involvement.

� Would you like to continue to be involved in this dialogue? � If yes, how would you like to be involved?

� Include me on the mailing list for future information, newsletters � Invite me to any focus groups/workshops or public information forums � Include me in any future surveys � Include me in any future Task Forces or Working Groups on this topic � Advise me of any Website on reusing purified water � Send me copies of any newspaper articles and useful reports on reusing purified water

� What are the best ways to communicate with you concerning future proposals about reusing purified water? � Articles in the Local Newspaper � Mailed Informational Pamphlets � Newsletters � Primers/Citizen’s Guides � Videos � Focus Groups � Workshops � Public Information Meetings � Television Programs on Public Channels � Information on Websites � Webcasting � Other (please specify)

Survey LogisticsThe personal and telephone interviews were conducted between March 11 and March 31, 2010.

The Interview team consisted of experienced interviewers and facilitators from Ogilvie, Ogilvie & Company:

� Bev Warner � Karen Wolfe � Mark Setter � Ron Kervin � Dave Watton � Fred Johnson � Gord Rodgers � Dr. Isobel Heathcote � Dr. Jim MacLean

Copies of the survey questionnaire are included in the Annex to this report


Sample Characteristics

Gender - 50% female, 50% maleWhat is your gender?

Communities N=107 Female Male Totals

Pefferlaw 7 (58%) 5 (42%) 12

Sutton 15 (71%) 6 (29%) 21

Keswick 16 (84%) 3(16%) 19

Georgina Sub-Total 38 (73%) 14 (27%) 52

Bradford 7 (33%) 14(66%) 21

Barrie 4 (24%) 13 (76%) 17

Outside the 3 communities 4 (24%) 13 (76%) 17

Grand Total 53 (50%) 54 (50%) 107

How long have you lived in the watershed - 49% for more than 30 years

How long have you lived in the Lake Simcoe Watershed?

Communities N=97

1 to 5 years

6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25 26 to 30 More than 30

Totals

Pefferlaw 0 2 (17%) 1 (8%) 0 0 2 (17%) 7 (58%) 12

Sutton 2 (10%) 0 1 (5%) 4 (19%) 3 (14%) 2 (10%) 9 (43%) 21

Keswick 1(5%) 3(16%) 1 (5%) 4 (21%) 3 (16%) 2 (11%) 5 (26%) 19

Georgina Sub-Total

3 (6%) 5 (10%) 3 (6%) 8 (15%) 6 (12%) 6 (12%) 21 (40%) 52

Bradford 0 1(5%) 1 (5%) 2 (10%) 0 2 (10%) 14 (70%) 20

Barrie 0 2 (13%) 3 (19%) 1 (6%) 3 (19%) 1 (6%) 6 (38%) 16

Outside the 3 communities

0 1(11%) 0 0 0 1 (11%) 7 (78%) 9

Grand Total 3 (3%) 9 (9%) 7 (7%) 11 (11%) 9 (9%) 10 (10%) 49 (49%) 97

3%

9%

7%

11%

9%

10%

49%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

1 to 5 years

6 to 10 yrs

11 to 15 yrs

16 to 20 years

21 to 25 yrs

26 to 30 years

More than 30 years

Years living in the watershed


Age distribution of respondents -The median age category was 55 to 59 years of age.

What is your current age?

Communities N=106

Pefferlaw Sutton Keswick Georgina Sub-Total

Bradford Barrie Outside the 3 communities

Grand Total

18-19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20-24 0 1 (5%) 0 1 (2%) 0 0 0 1 (1%)

25-34 0 3 (14%) 2 (11%) 5 (10%) 0 2 (13%) 0 7 (7%)

35-44 0 2 (2%) 2 (11%) 4 (8%) 3 (14%) 0 0 7 (7%)

45-54 3 (25%) 6 (29% 2 (11%) 11 (21%) 9 (43%) 5 (31%) 4 (24%) 29 (27%)

55-59 6 (50%) 4 (19%) 3 (16%) 13 (25%) 3 (14%) 2 (13%) 5 (29%) 23 (22%)

60-64 2 (17%) 1 (5%) 8 (42%) 11 (21%) 2 (10%) 4 (25%) 1 (6%) 18 (17%)

65-74 1 (8%) 2 (10%) 1 (5%) 4 (8%) 3 (14%) 3 (19%) 7 (41%) 17 (16%)

75-84 0 2 (10%) 1 (5%) 3 (6%) 1 (5%) 0 0 4 (4%)

85+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Totals 12 21 19 52 21 16 17 106

Level of educationThe sample of respondents had an unusually high percentage of people with post secondary educations:

� 30% with community college level � 34% with university level

This is due to the number of elected officials, municipal staff and the members of specials committees like the Source Protection and PROPEL committees

0%

1%

7%

7%

27%

22%

17%

16%

4%

0%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

18-‐19 years

20-‐24 years

25-‐34 years

35-‐44 years

45-‐54 years

55-‐59 years

60-‐64 years

65-‐74 years

75-‐84 years

85+ years

Age distribu,on of respondents


What level of education have you completed?

Communities N=108

Grade School

Jr, High High School

Community College

University Other Totals

Pefferlaw 1 (8% 0 5 (42%) 5 (42%) 1 (8%) 0 12

Sutton 0 0 9 (43%) 7 (33%) 5 (24%) 0 21

Keswick 0 2 (10%) 9 (45%) 5 (25%) 3 (15%) 0 19

Georgina Sub-Total

1 (2%) 2 (4%) 23 (43%) 17 (32%) 9 (17%) 0 52

Bradford 0 1(5%) 10 (48%) 7 (33%) 5 (24%) 0 23

Barrie 0 0 0 5 (29%) 11 (65%) 0 16


0 0 2 (12%) 3 (18%) 12 (71%) 0 17

Grand Total 1 (1%) 3 (3%) 35 (32%) 32 (30%) 37 (34%) 108

Children in the household and their ages

1%

3%

32%

30%

34%

0%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Grade School

Junior High School

High School

Community College

University

…Other specify

Level of educa,on

49%

6%

5%

17%

23%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

No children

0-‐5 years

6-‐10 years

11-‐15 years

16+ years

Children and Ages


If there are children living in your household, what are their ages?

Communities N=108

No children 0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16+ years Total Responses

Pefferlaw 8 (67%) 0 1 (8%) 2 (17%) 3 (25%) 14

Sutton 8 (38%) 2 (10%) 3 (14%) 3 (14%) 4 (19%) 20

Keswick 9 (45%) 2 (10%) 0 2 (10%) 3 (15%) 19

Georgina Sub-Total

25 (47%%) 4 (8%) 4 (8%) 7 (13%) 10 (19%) 50

Bradford 8 (38%) 2 (10%) 1 (5%) 6 (29%) 11 (52%) 28

Barrie 12 (71%) 1 (6%) 1 (6%) 3 (18%) 1 (6%) 18


10 (59%) 0 0 3 (18%) 4 (24%) 17

Grand Total 55 (49%) 7 (6%) 6 (5%) 19 (17%) 26 (23%) 113

Occupation of respondents

Which best describes your occupation?

Communities N=108

Pefferlaw Sutton Keswick Georgina Sub-Total

Bradford Barrie Outside the 3 communities

Grand Total

Business Owner/Self-employed

1 (8) 7 (33%) 4 (20%) 12 (23%) 5 (24%) 1 (6%) 5 (29%) 23 (19%)

Clerical/Administrative

0 1 (5%) 2 (10%) 3 (6%) 1 (5%) 0 0 4 (3%)

Entrepreneur 1 (8) 0 0 1 (2%) 2 (10%) 0 0 3 (2%)

Education Professional

0 1 (5%) 3 (15%) 4 (8%) 0 0 1 (6%) 5 (4%)

Engineering 0 0 0 1 (2%) 1 (5%) 2 (12%) 2 (12%) 6 (5%)

Farming 1 (8%) 0 0 1 (2%) 8 (38%) 0 2 (12%) 11 (9%)

Healthcare 1 (8%) 0 1 (5%) 2 (4%) 2 (10%) 2 (12%) 0 6 (5%)

Homemaker 1 (8%) 0 1 (5%) 2 (4%) 0 0 0 2 (2%)

Hospitality/Food Service

0 0 0 0 1 (5%) 0 0 1 (1%)

Laborer 0 0 0 0 2 (10%) 0 0 2 (2%)

Legal 0 0 0 0 0 1 (6%) 0 1 (1%)

Management 1 (8%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 3 (6%) 2 (10%) 3 (18%) 2 (12%) 10 (8%)

Government 2 (17%) 4 (19%) 1 (5%) 7 (13%) 5 (24%) 7 (41%) 6 (35%) 25 (21%)

Retired 4 (33%) 4(19%) 6 (30%) 14 (26%) 3 (14%) 2 (12%) 3 (18%) 22 (18%)

Totals 12 21 19 52 21 16 17 108


4.0 Survey Findings

4.1 General Awareness and KnowledgeThese questions were designed to provide a baseline on the respondents current situation regarding water and wastewater.

Question: Who supplies the drinking water for your home?This question was to determine the distribution of homes that were serviced by municipal water versus homes that had their own water wells. Table 1.1 provides the preliminary frequency distributions by individual community. Overall, 66% of the survey respondents are on municipal services while the remaining 34% get their water from their own water wells.

Table 1.1 Who supplies the drinking water for your home?

Communities N=108 Municipal My own well Other Totals

Pefferlaw 0 (0%) 12 (100%) 0 12

Sutton 12 (57%) 9 (43%) 0 21

Keswick 19 (95%) 1(5%) 0 20

Georgina Sub-Total 31 (58%) 22 (42%) 0 52

Bradford 13 (62%) 8(38%) 0 21

Barrie 15 (88%) 2 (12%) 0 17

Outside the 3 communities 12 (71%%) 5(29%) 0 17

Grand Total 71 (66%) 37 (34%) 0 108

Question: Who supplies the wastewater disposal system for your home?Table 1.2 provides the preliminary frequency distributions which mirror the pattern found regarding drinking water. The one exception was one respondent in Barrie who had municipal water but had his own septic system.

Table 1.2 Who supplies the wastewater disposal system for your home?

Communities N=108 Municipal My own septic system

Other Totals

Pefferlaw 0 12 (100%) 0 12

Sutton 12 (57%) 9 (43%) 0 21

Keswick 19 (95%) 1 (5%) 0 20

Georgina Sub-Total 31 (58%) 22 (42%) 0 52

Bradford 12 (57%) 9(43%) 0 21

Barrie 14 (82%) 3 (18%) 0 17

Outside the 3 communities 11 (65%) 6 (35%) 0 17

Grand Total 68 (63%) 40 (37%) 0 108


Question: Do you have a greywater reuse system in your home?Given the pilots and demonstration projects on greywater reuse systems in individual homes, this questions was designed to see if there were any in the watershed. So far, none of the respondents had a greywater reuse system in their home.

Table 1.3 Do you have a greywater reuse system in your home?

All Communities N=80 Yes No Totals

Grand Total 0 108 (100%) 108

Question: How much do you pay for water a year?We must admit that we were surprised by the number of respondents (19%) who were paying more than $500 per year and the fact that 90% did in fact know how much their water charges were.

Table 1.4 How much do you pay for water a year?

Communities N=106 Nothing $300 to $500

More than $500

Don’t Know

Totals

Pefferlaw 11 (92%) 1 (8) 0 0 12

Sutton 9 (43%) 5 (24%) 5 (26%) 1 (5%) 20

Keswick 1 (5%) 15 (75%) 4 (20%) 0 20

Georgina Sub-Total 21 (40%) 21 (40%) 9 (17%) 1 (2%) 52

Bradford 8 (38%) 6 (29%) 3 (14%) 3 (14%) 20

Barrie 1 (6%) 7 (41%) 4 (24%) 5 (29%) 17

Outside the 3 communities 5 (29%) 4 (24%) 4 (24%) 4 (24%) 17

Grand Total 35 (33%) 38 (36%) 20 (19%) 13 (12%) 106

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Nothing

$300 to $500

More than $500

Don’t Know

33%

36%

19%

12%

Chart 1.4 Amount paid for water per year


Question: How familiar are you with the concept of reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants?

Respondents familiarity with the concept of reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants is a critical element of the baseline data on stakeholder/public acceptance. As Chart 1.5 illustrates, 68% (39% very familiar + 19% at [2] on the scale) of the respondents said they were at the “not familiar” end of the 5-point scale. And 18% ( 7% at [4} + 11% very familiar) said they were at the “very familiar” end of the scale.

39%

19%

24%

7%

11%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Not familiar [1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5] Very familiar

Chart 1.5 Familiarity with concept of reusing water


The higher levels of familiarity in “outside the three communities” is explained by the fact that this subset is composed of members of the PROPEL Committee and the Source Protection Committee. Barrie on the other hand included more elected officials and municipal staff.

In spite of these “pockets” of very familiar respondents, the major conclusion is that 3 times as many respondents are on the Not Familiar end of the scale as compared to the Very Familiar end of the scale. This is both a problem and an opportunity. The problem is that any further work on water reuse will have to mount a major informational effort to “inform” people so they can participate in further discussion having the facts. The opportunity is that the concept of water reuse is not yet prejudiced and controversial.

Table 1.5 How familiar are you with the concept of reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants?

Communities N=108 Not Familiar [1] [2] [3] [4] Very Familiar [5] Totals

Pefferlaw 2 (17%) 4 (33%) 5 (42%) 0 1 (8%) 12

Sutton 10 (48%) 3 (14%) 4 (19%) 2 (10%) 2 (10%) 21

Keswick 15 (75%) 1 (5%) 2 (10%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 20

Georgina Sub-Total 27 (51%) 8 (15%) 11 (21%) 3 (6%) 4 (8%) 53

Bradford 11 (52%) 5 (24%) 4 (19%) 0 1 (5%) 21

Barrie 3 (18%) 4 (24%) 3 (18%) 1 (6%) 6 (35%) 17

Outside the 3 communities 1 (6%) 3 (18%) 8 (47%) 4 (24%) 1 (6%) 17

Grand Total 42 (39%) 20 (19%) 26 (24%) 8 (7%) 12 (11%) 108

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Pefferlaw

Su6on

Keswick

Georgina Sub-‐Total

Bradford

Barrie

Outside the 3 communiJes

17%

48%

75%

51%

52%

18%

6%

33%

14%

5%

15%

24%

24%

18%

42%

19%

10%

21%

19%

18%

47%

0%

10%

5%

6%

0%

6%

24%

8%

10%

5%

8%

5%

35%

6%

Chart 1.5.1 Comparison of familiarity by community

Not Familiar [1] [2] [3] [4] Very Familiar [5]


Question: Do you think there is a need to reuse purified water from wastewater treatment plants in the Lake Simcoe watershed?

On the question of “need”, 41% said they” agree” and a further 38% said they “tend to agree” for a total of 79%. The respondents who said they “disagree”, said they felt the case or arguments for water reuse were insufficient. For the 11% who said they “don’t know”, they said they did not have enough information on “need” to make such a determination.

41%

38%

5%

6%

11%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Agree

Tend to agree

Tend to disagree

Disagree

Don't Know

Chart 1.6 % of respondents who think there is a need for water reuse

75%

19%

45%

42%

29%

47%

47%

25%

33%

30%

30%

57%

41%

35%

0%

10%

10%

8%

0%

6%

0%

0%

14%

0%

6%

0%

0%

18%

0%

24%

15%

15%

14%

6%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Pefferlaw

Su6on

Keswick

Georgina Sub-‐Total

Bradford

Barrie

Outside the 3 communiJes

Chart 1.6.1 Comparison by community of respondents who think there is a need for water reuse

Agree Tend to Agree Tend to Disagree Disagree Don’t Know


Table 1.6 Do you think there is a need to reuse purified water from wastewater treatment plants in the Lake Simcoe watershed?

Communities N=108 Agree Tend to Agree

Tend to Disagree

Disagree Don’t Know

Totals

Pefferlaw 9 (75%) 3 (25%) 0 0 0 12

Sutton 4 (19%) 7 (33%) 2 (10%) 3 (14%) 5 (24%) 21

Keswick 9 (45%) 6 (30%) 2 (10%) 0 3 (15%) 20


Bradford 6 (29%) 12 (57%) 0 0 3 (14%) 21

Barrie 8 (47%) 7 (41%) 1 (6%) 0 1 (6%) 17

Outside the 3 communities 8 (47%) 6 (35%) 0 3 (18%) 0 17

Grand Total 44 (41%) 41 (38%) 5 (5%) 6 (6%) 12 (11%) 108

Question: Do you think reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants for non-potable uses is a good idea?

Interestingly, when asked if water reuse was a good idea, the number of respondents who agreed jumped to 57%. When those who said “agree” is combined with those who said “tend to agree”, a total of 86% of the respondents think water reuse is a good idea. The previous question asked people if there was a “need” and only 41% said they “agree”.

57%

29%

3%

4%

7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Agree

Tend to agree

Tend to disagree

Disagree

Don't Know

Chart 1.7 % respondents who think reusing water for non-‐potable uses is a good idea


Table 1.7 Do you think reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants for non-potable uses is agood idea?

Communities N=107 Agree Tend to Agree

Tend to Disagree

Disagree Don’t Know

Totals

Pefferlaw 8 (67%) 3 (25%) 0 1 (8%) 0 12

Sutton 11 (52%) 5 (24%) 0 1 (5%) 4 (19%) 21

Keswick 9 (45%) 7 (35%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 19


Bradford 10 (48%) 10 (48%) 0 0 1 (5%) 21

Barrie 12 (71%) 3 (18%) 1 (6%) 0 1 (6%) 17

Outside the 3 communities 11 (65%) 3 (18%) 1 (6%) 1 (6%) 1 (6%) 17

Grand Total 61 (57%) 31 (29%) 3 (3%) 4 (4%) 8 (7%) 107

Question: Please indicate how familiar you are with the following terms:

The purpose of this question was to see how familiar respondents were with terms that are regularly used by experts and operators in the fields of water and wastewater systems development and operation. Familiarity with these terms is another indicator of both the type and amount of outreach that will be required.

With the exception of the terms “reclaimed water”, “blackwater” and “aquifer recharge”, the majority of the respondents indicated that they knew what the term meant. Chart 1.8 provides a graphic description of the responses to each “term”.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Potable water

Wastewater

Greywater

Reclaimed water

Recycled water

Blackwater

Stormwater

Aquifer recharge

Non-‐potable water

18%

8%

15%

27%

12%

41%

7%

34%

19%

9%

10%

10%

28%

31%

22%

11%

15%

5%

73%

81%

75%

45%

57%

37%

81%

51%

75%

Chart 1.8 % of respondents familiar with water and wastewater terminology

Have not heard of the term at all Have heard of the term but don’t know its meaning Know what the term means


Table 1.8 (All 3 Communities) Please indicate how familiar you are with the following terms:

All 3 Communities N=108 Have not heard of the term at all

Have heard of the term but don’t

know its meaning

Know what the term means

Totals

Potable water 19 (18%) 10 (9%) 79 (73%) 108

Wastewater 9 (8%) 11 (10%) 88 (81%) 108

Greywater 16 (15%) 11 (10%) 79 (75%) 106

Reclaimed water 29 (27%) 30 (28%) 49 (45%) 108

Recycled water 13 (12%) 33 (31%) 62 (57%) 108

Blackwater 44 (41%) 24 (22%) 40 (37%) 108

Stormwater 8 (7%) 12 (11%) 88 (81%) 108

Aquifer recharge 37 (34%) 16 (15%) 55 (51%) 108

Non-potable water 21 (19%) 5 (5%) 82 (75%) 108

Comparison of Georgina, Bradford and Barrie regarding familiarity with terminology

There are differences between the respondents of the three communities regarding their familiarity with water and wastewater terminology. The most noticeable differences are regarding the terms:

Blackwater � 45% in Georgina had not heard the term at all � 57% in Bradford had not heard the term at all � Only 24% in Barrie had not heard the term at all

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Potable water

Wastewater

Greywater

Reclaimed water

Recycled water

Blackwater

Stormwater

Aquifer recharge


26%

13%

23%

43%

11%

45%

11%

49%

30%

15%

19%

15%

25%

30%

26%

19%

21%

8%

58%

68%

60%

32%

58%

28%

70%

30%

62%

Chart 1.8 (Georgina) % of respondents familiar with water and wastewater terminology



Aquifer Recharge � 49% in Georgina had not heard the term at all � 38% in Bradford had not heard the term at all � Only 18% in Barrie had not heard the term at all

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Potable water

Wastewater

Greywater

Reclaimed water

Recycled water

Blackwater

Stormwater

Aquifer recharge


19%

10%

14%

24%

19%

57%

10%

38%

19%

10%

5%

10%

19%

29%

10%

10%

14%

5%

71%

86%

76%

57%

52%

33%

81%

48%

76%

Chart 1.8 (Bradford) % of respondents familiar with water and wastewater terminology


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Potable water

Wastewater

Greywater

Reclaimed water

Recycled water

Blackwater

Stormwater

Aquifer recharge


6%

0%

6%

6%

6%

24%

0%

18%

6%

0%

0%

6%

29%

29%

18%

0%

6%

0%

94%

100%

88%

65%

65%

59%

100%

76%

94%

Chart 1.8 (Barrie) % of respondents familiar with water and wastewater terminology



Table 1.8 (Georgina) Please indicate how familiar you are with the following terms:

N=53 Have not heard of the term at all


know its meaning


Totals

Potable water 14 (26%) 8 (15%) 31 (58%) 53

Wastewater 7 (13%) 10 (19%) 36 (68%) 53

Greywater 12 (23%) 8 (15%) 32 (60%) 52

Reclaimed water 23 (43%) 13 (25%) 17 (32%) 53

Recycled water 6 (11%) 16 (30%) 31 (58%) 53

Blackwater 24 (45%) 14 (26%) 15 (28%) 53

Stormwater 6 (11%) 10 (19%) 37 (70%) 53



Table 1.8 (Bradford) Please indicate how familiar you are with the following terms:



know its meaning


Totals

Potable water 4 (19%) 2 (10%) 15 (71%) 21

Wastewater 2 (10%) 1 (5%) 18 (86%) 21

Greywater 3 (14%) 2 (10%) 16 (76%) 21

Reclaimed water 5 (24%) 4 (19%) 12 (57%) 21

Recycled water 4 (19%) 6 (29%) 11 (52%) 21

Blackwater 12 (57%) 2 (10%) 7 (33%) 21

Stormwater 2 (10%) 2 (10%) 17 (81%) 21



Table 1.8 (Barrie) Please indicate how familiar you are with the following terms:



know its meaning


Totals

Potable water 1 (6%) 0 16 (94%) 17

Wastewater 0 0 17 (100%) 17

Greywater 1 (6%) 1 (6%) 14 (88%) 16

Reclaimed water 1 (6%) 5 (29%) 11 (65%) 17

Recycled water 1 (6%) 5 (29%) 11 (65%) 17

Blackwater 4 (24%) 3 (18%) 10 (59%) 17

Stormwater 0 0 17 (100%) 17


Non-potable water 1 (6%) 0 16 (94%) 17


Summary of Section 1- General Awareness and KnowledgeWho supplies the drinking water for your home?

� Overall, 66% of the survey respondents are on municipal services while the remaining 34% get their water from their own water wells.

Who supplies the wastewater disposal system for your home? � Similar to water services, 63% of the respondents are on municipal services while 37% have their

own septic system.

Do you have a greywater reuse system in your home? � None of the respondents had a greywater reuse system in their home.

How much do you pay for water a year? � 33% pay nothing � 36% pay $300 -$500 � 19% pay more than $500 � 12% did not know

How familiar are you with the concept of reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants?

� 39% indicated not familiar � 19% indicated [2} on the scale � 24% indicated [3} on the scale � 7% indicated [4] on the scale � 11% indicated very familiar

Do you think there is a need to reuse purified water from wastewater treatment plants in the Lake Simcoe watershed?

� 41% indicated “agree” � 38% indicated “tend to agree” � 5% indicated “tend to disagree” � 6% indicated “disagree” � 11% indicated “don’t know”

Do you think reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants for non-potable uses is a good idea?


How familiar you are with the following terms: � Potable water ............................................................73% indicated they knew what the term means � Wastewater ................................................................81% � Greywater ...................................................................75% � Reclaimed water ......................................................45% � Recycled water .........................................................57% � Blackwater .................................................................37% � Stormwater ................................................................81% � Aquifer recharge ......................................................51% � Non-potable water .................................................75%


4.2 Acceptable and Non-Acceptable Uses of treated wastewaterQuestion: Which uses of purified water from sewage treatment plants would

be acceptable or not acceptable to you?

Table 2.1 (All Respondents) Please indicate which uses of purified water from sewage treatment plants would be acceptable or not acceptable to you?

Uses N=108 Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know Totals

Agricultural Irrigation

Food Crops 27 (25%) 18 (17%) 57 (53%) 6 (6%) 108

Non-Food Crops 12 (2%) 15 (14%) 90 (83%) 1 (1%) 108

Sod Farming 3 (3%) 8 (7%) 97 (90%) 0 108

Commercial Nurseries 4 (4%) 13 (12%) 91 (84%) 0 108

Landscape Irrigation

Industrial Parks 2 (2%) 10 (9%) 96 (89%) 0 108

Golf Courses 3 (3%) 12 (11%) 93 (86%) 0 108

Public Parks/Athletic Fields 17 (16%) 21 (19%) 67 (62%) 3 (3%) 108

School Grounds 22 (20%) 32 (30%) 51 (47%) 3 (3%) 108

Industrial and Commercial

Cooling Power Plants 1 (1%) 6 (6%) 100 (93%) 1 (1%) 108

Mixing Concrete 0 10 (9%) 97 (90%) 1 (1%) 108

Gravel Washing 1 (1%) 8 (7%) 99 (92%) 0 108

Equipment Cleaning 2 (2%) 14 (13%) 89 (82%) 3 (3%) 108

Dust Control 4 (4%) 15 (14%) 88 (81%) 1 (1%) 108

Air Conditioning 15 (14%) 15 (14%) 74 (69%) 4 (4%) 108

Laundries 35 (32%) 22 (20%) 47 (44%) 4 (4%) 108

Car Washes 4 (4%) 18 (17%) 86 (80%) 0 108

Municipal

Fire Fighting 5 (5%) 11 (10%) 90 (83%) 2 (2%) 108

Street Cleaning 2 (2%) 14 (13%) 90 (83%) 2 (2%) 108

Flushing Wastewater Pipes 0 6 (6%) 101 (94%) 1 (1%) 108

Recreational

Snow/Ice Making 14 (13%) 19 (18%) 72 (67%) 2 (2%) 108

Public Swimming Pools 61 (56%) 19 (18%) 25 (23%) 3 (3%) 108

Maintaining Pond Levels, Fountains, etc 17 (16%) 22 (20%) 69 (64%) 0 108

Environmental Restoration

Stream Flow Augmentation 12 (11%) 22 (20%) 65 (60%) 8 (7%) 108

Wetland Enhancement 10 (9%) 26 (24%) 68 (63%) 3 (3%) 108

Fisheries Management 19 (18%) 31 (29%) 51 (47%) 6 (6%) 108

Household

Toilet Flushing 4 (4%) 5 (5%) 99 (92%) 0 108

Lawn/Garden Watering 16 (15%) 14 (13%) 78 (72%) 0 108

Washing Cars, Fences, etc 12 (11%) 11 (10%) 84 (78%) 1 (1%) 108

Swimming Pools 62 (57%) 18 (17%) 26 (24%) 2 (2%) 108


This section of the survey is perhaps the most important because it focusses on which uses are not acceptable versus acceptable to the stakeholders/public.

“ Community acceptance of degraded water reuse depends on the type and source of the reuse water, the specific reuse application, and cultural and local issues. Perceived human health risks are often the main criteria determining public acceptance. Residents of San Francisco gave the following positive responses to acceptable uses of wastewater effluent: concrete production (90%), irrigation of crops for direct human consumption (30%), and direct potable reuse (18%) (USEPA, 2004). Consideration of stakeholder issues must occur, not as an afterthought, but early on in the conceptualization of a reuse program. Public participation is essential. In areas with abundant rainfall, the benefits of water reuse are not fully appreciated. Education of the public and local decision-makers is a key consideration for success (Miller, 2006). Endeavors to promote the degraded water reuse systems will largely be wasted without due consideration and active implementation of stakeholder concerns.” [Degraded Water Reuse: An Overview G. A. O’Connora,*, H. A. Elliottb and R. K. Bastianc , Soil and Water Science Dept., Univ. of Florida, 2008]

Table 2.1 on the previous page illustrates how respondents to the survey rated the various uses of reused water from wastewater treatment plants.

Not Acceptable uses in descending order - Swimming Pools ....................................................... 57% of respondents said Not Acceptable use - Public Swimming Pools .......................................... 56% - Laundries ..................................................................... 32% - Food Crops .................................................................. 25% - School Grounds ......................................................... 20% - Fisheries Management ........................................... 18% - Public Parks/Athletic Fields ................................... 16% - Maintaining Pond Levels, Fountains, etc .......... 16% - Lawn/Garden Watering .......................................... 15% - Air Conditioning ........................................................ 14% - Snow/Ice Making ...................................................... 13% - Stream Flow Augmentation.................................. 11% - Washing Cars, Fences, etc ...................................... 11% - Wetland Enhancement ........................................... 9% - Fire Fighting ................................................................ 5% - Commercial Nurseries ............................................. 4% - Dust Control ............................................................... 4% - Car Washes .................................................................. 4% - Toilet Flushing ............................................................ 4% - Sod Farming ............................................................... 3% - Golf Courses................................................................ 3% - Non-Food Crops ........................................................ 2% - Industrial Parks .......................................................... 2% - Equipment Cleaning................................................ 2% - Street Cleaning .......................................................... 2% - Cooling Power Plants .............................................. 1% - Gravel Washing .......................................................... 1% - Mixing Concrete ........................................................ 0% - Flushing Wastewater Pipes ................................... 0%


Yes Acceptable uses in descending order - Flushing Wastewater Pipes ................................... 94% of respondents said Yes Acceptable use - Cooling Power Plants .............................................. 93% - Gravel Washing .......................................................... 92% - Toilet Flushing ............................................................ 92% - Sod Farming ............................................................... 90% - Mixing Concrete ........................................................ 90% - Industrial Parks .......................................................... 89% - Golf Courses................................................................ 86% - Commercial Nurseries ............................................. 84% - Non-Food Crops ........................................................ 83% - Fire Fighting ................................................................ 83% - Street Cleaning .......................................................... 83% - Equipment Cleaning................................................ 82% - Dust Control ............................................................... 81% - Car Washes .................................................................. 80% - Washing Cars, Fences, etc ...................................... 78% - Lawn/Garden Watering .......................................... 72% - Air Conditioning ........................................................ 69% - Snow/Ice Making ...................................................... 67% - Maintaining Pond Levels, Fountains, etc .......... 64% - Wetland Enhancement ........................................... 63% - Public Parks/Athletic Fields ................................... 62% - Stream Flow Augmentation.................................. 60% - Food Crops .................................................................. 53% - School Grounds ......................................................... 47% - Fisheries Management ........................................... 47% - Laundries ..................................................................... 44% - Swimming Pools ....................................................... 24% - Public Swimming Pools .......................................... 23%

Maybe in descending order - School Grounds ......................................................... 30% of respondents said Maybe use - Fisheries Management ........................................... 29% - Wetland Enhancement ........................................... 24% - Laundries ..................................................................... 20% - Maintaining Pond Levels, Fountains, etc .......... 20% - Stream Flow Augmentation.................................. 20% - Public Parks/Athletic Fields ................................... 19% - Snow/Ice Making ...................................................... 18% - Public Swimming Pools .......................................... 18% - Food Crops .................................................................. 17% - Car Washes .................................................................. 17% - Swimming Pools ....................................................... 17% - Non-Food Crops ........................................................ 14% - Dust Control ............................................................... 14% - Air Conditioning ........................................................ 14% - Equipment Cleaning................................................ 13% - Street Cleaning .......................................................... 13% - Lawn/Garden Watering .......................................... 13% - Commercial Nurseries ............................................. 12% - Golf Courses................................................................ 11%


- Fire Fighting ................................................................ 10% - Washing Cars, Fences, etc ...................................... 10% - Industrial Parks .......................................................... 9% - Mixing Concrete ........................................................ 9% - Sod Farming ............................................................... 7% - Gravel Washing .......................................................... 7% - Cooling Power Plants .............................................. 6% - Flushing Wastewater Pipes ................................... 6% - Toilet Flushing ............................................................ 5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Flushing Wastewater Pipes

Mixing Concrete

Cooling Power Plants

Gravel Washing

Industrial Parks

Non-‐Food Crops

Street Cleaning

Equipment Cleaning

Sod Farming

Golf Courses

Toilet Flushing

Commercial Nurseries

Dust Control

Car Washes

Fire FighPng

Wetland Enhancement

Washing Cars, Fences, etc

Stream Flow AugmentaPon

Snow/Ice Making

Air CondiPoning

Lawn/Garden Watering

Maintaining Pond Levels, Fountains, etc

Public Parks/AthlePc Fields

Fisheries Management

School Grounds

Food Crops

Laundries

Public Swimming Pools

Swimming Pools

0%

0%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

3%

3%

4%

4%

4%

4%

5%

9%

11%

11%

13%

14%

15%

16%

16%

18%

20%

25%

32%

56%

57%

6%

9%

6%

7%

9%

14%

13%

13%

7%

11%

5%

12%

14%

17%

10%

24%

10%

29%

18%

14%

13%

20%

19%

29%

30%

17%

20%

18%

17%

94%

90%

93%

92%

89%

83%

83%

82%

90%

86%

92%

84%

81%

80%

83%

63%

78%

60%

67%

69%

72%

64%

62%

47%

47%

53%

44%

23%

24%

Chart 2.1 % respondents said "uses" not acceptable, mabe and yes acceptable

Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable


By way of comparison, the following Figure 2 is from a 2008 Survey of Public Perceptions in Arizona [SURVEY OF PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS REGARDING WATER REUSE IN ARIZONA: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES, Channah Rock et al. Soil, Water, and Environmental Science Department, University of Arizona, 2008]

When we compared the various uses according to “strongly support+somewhat support/yes acceptable”, we found the following similarities:

Potential uses of reused water Arizona Survey 2008strongly support+ somewhat support

Lake Simcoe Survey 2010yes acceptable

Water non-edible food crops 93% 83%

Control dust on roads/dust control 92% 81%

Fight fires/fire fighting 91% 83%

Water gold courses 90% 86%

Cool power plants 89% 93%

Household toilets/toilet flushing 86% 92%

Water yards/ Lawn/Garden Watering 80% 72%

Increase stream flows / Stream Flow Augmentation

57% 60%

Snowmaking/ Snow/Ice Making 66% 67%

FIGURE 2. Support/Opposition for potential uses of reclaimed water

FIGURE 3. Support/Opposition for potential uses of reclaimed water treated to higher standards


And when we compared the various uses according to “strongly oppose+ somewhat oppose/Not acceptable”, we found the following similarities:

Potential uses of reused water Arizona Survey 2008strongly oppose+ somewhat oppose

Lake Simcoe Survey 2010Not acceptable

Water vegetable crops/food crops 45% 25%

Water parks/schools/School grounds 21% 20%

Snowmaking/ Snow/Ice Making 27% 13%

Increase stream flows / Stream Flow Augmentation

33% 11%

Water yards/ Lawn/Garden Watering 14% 15%

Household toilets/toilet flushing 13% 4%

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements. I would support reusing purified water because…

We also wanted to find out the underlying reason why the stakeholders/public would support reusing treated wastewater.

Table 2.2 (All Respondents) Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements.

Statements N=102I would support reusing purified water…

Agree Tend to Agree

Tend to Disagree

Disagree Totals

because it is more environmentally sustainable than continuing to discharge treated wastewater into streams and lakes

64 (63%) 27 (27%) 4 (4%) 6 (6%) 101

because it will reduce the need to expand wastewater treatment plants to meet growing population needs in the watershed

47 (46%) 23 (23%) 12 (12%) 20 (20%) 102

because it will reduce the effluent going into the lakes and waterways

64 (63%) 26 (25%) 5 (5%) 7 (7%) 102

because it will reduce the amount of phosphorus and other nutrients going into Lake Simcoe

66 (65%) 27 (27%) 5 (5%) 3 (3%) 101

because it allows for the beneficial recycling of water and nutrients

67 (68%) 24 (24%) 5 (5%) 2 (2%) 98

Respondents ranking of these statements in descending order indicates very little difference between the top 4 reasons for supporting water reuse:

� 68% -because it allows for the beneficial recycling of water and nutrients � 65% -because it will reduce the amount of phosphorus and other nutrients going into Lake

Simcoe � 63% -because it will reduce the effluent going into the lakes and waterways � 63% -because it is more environmentally sustainable than continuing to discharge treated

wastewater into streams and lakes � 46% - because it will reduce the need to expand wastewater treatment plants to meet growing

population needs in the watershed

Respondents also added the following comments: � Recharge aquifers � Need to keep P down to conserve the watershed � Less costly for all of us � Support provided it is safe, I would need to know more � Based on assumption it will do what it is supposed to in terms of clean, healthy water � The savings of water from aquifers is at least important as the above reasons


� Are the volumes of water not going back into the Lake going to affect the lakes sustainability i.e. water levels and as a source?

� Dependence on drinking water is less � Reduces our dependence on water purification systems for drinking water. � What does beneficial mean? � Cost of waste water less than purified water (potable). Better use of waste water

Question: Whose opinions about a proposal to reuse purified water would you trust the most?

The literature on public acceptance of water reuse schemes considers the trustworthiness of the proponent as an important factor in the stakeholders/public’s willingness to support such schemes.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Internet

Media (Newspapers, TV)

Consultants

Special Interest Groups

Regional Governments

Federal Government/Agencies

Provincial Government/Agencies

Local MunicipaliOes

University Professors/Experts

ConservaOon AuthoriOes

Public Health Units

1%

2%

7%

11%

19%

19%

21%

27%

31%

42%

47%

40%

33%

66%

38%

53%

44%

46%

46%

56%

47%

43%

51%

61%

23%

45%

26%

32%

30%

24%

11%

9%

8%

7%

4%

3%

6%

2%

4%

3%

3%

2%

2%

2%

Chart 2.3 % Respondents ra2ng organiza2ons on their trustworthiness

Very Trustworthy Somewhat Trustworthy Not Trustworthy Don’t Know


Table 2.3 (All Respondents) Whose opinions about a proposal to reuse purified water would you trust the most?

Sources N=108 VeryTrustworthy

SomewhatTrustworthy

NotTrustworthy

Don’t Know Totals

Conservation Authorities 45 (42%) 51 (47%) 10 (9%) 2 (2%) 108

Regional Governments 21 (19%) 57 (53%) 28 (26%) 2 (2%) 108

Local Municipalities 29 (27%) 50 (46%) 26 (24%) 3 (3%) 108

Provincial Government/Agencies 23 (21%) 50 (46%) 32 (30%) 3 (3%) 108

Federal Government/Agencies 21 (19%) 48 (44%) 35 (32%) 4 (4%) 108

Public Health Units 50 (47%) 46 (43%) 9 (8%) 2 (2%) 107

Special Interest Groups 12 (11%) 41 (38%) 48 (45%) 6 (6%) 107

Consultants 8 (7%) 71 (66%) 25 (23%) 3 (3%) 107

University Professors/Experts 33 (31%) 61 (56%) 12 (11%) 2 (2%) 108

Media (Newspapers, TV) 2 (2%) 36 (33%) 66 (61%) 4 (4%) 108

Internet 1 (1%) 43 (40%) 55 (51%) 7 (6%) 106

Question: How important are each of the following questions to you?

Similar to the responses to the question about “I would support reusing purified water because...” (Table 2.2), respondents were almost universal in ranking the following questions at the top of their list:

� What safeguards are there to protect human and environmental health?...95% � What are the human and environmental health risks?.........................................95%

71%

77%

85%

86%

86%

88%

91%

93%

93%

95%

95%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Who are the target users?

What is the need and jus<fica<on for reusing purified water?

What type of system is it? Is there a complete descrip<on of the proposed system?

What sources of water will be reused?

Where else has this been done before and with what degree of success?

Who receives the benefits and who pays the costs?

What monitoring/inspec<on systems will be ins<tuted?

What are the costs and benefits of the scheme?

What will the purified water be used for? ie. What applica<ons?

What are the human and environmental health risks?

What safeguards are there to protect human and environmental health?

Chart 2.4 How important are each of the following ques9ons


Respondents also mentioned that they would also like answers to the following questions/issues:

� What geographic areas/locations? � What sort of educational resources should be provided for understanding and acceptance � Is this a stand alone cost to be paid by users? Others (developers should pay for capital costs) � Equal/equitable distribution of costs � What’s the benefit! If we are doing it to make us feel good, don’t bother � Studies have been done on all alternative uses � How will the perception of “wastewater” be overcome? � It should be used commercially � How would this be accomplished? � What chemicals are you going to subject us to now? If any? � What are the human and environmental effects of NOT doing it? � What are the pros and cons of places this concept is in use � Should be used industrially - like Pickering Power Plant etc. � Less important to know the cost…more important to know the benefit. Split the question into 2…

why can’t it be used for potable? Assuming because can’t get everything out of it but why can’t they make it potable?

Table 2.4 (All Respondents) How important are each of the following questions to you?

Sources N=108 MostImportant

SomewhatImportant

LessImportant

NotImportant

Totals

What is the need and justification for reusing purified water?

83 (77%) 22 (20%) 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 108

What sources of water will be reused? 92 (86%) 14 (13%) 1 (1%) 0 107

What will the purified water be used for? ie. What applications?

99 (93%) 8 (7%) 0 0 107

Who are the target users? 76 (71%) 28 (26%) 3 (3%) 0 107

What type of system is it? Is there a complete description of the proposed system?

91 (85%) 12 (11%) 4 (4%) 0 107


93 (86%) 14 (13%) 1 (1%) 0 108

What are the costs and benefits of the scheme? 100 (93%) 7 (7%) 0 0 107

Who receives the benefits and who pays the costs? 94 (88%) 12 (11%) 1 (1%) 0 107

What are the human and environmental health risks? 103 (95%) 5 (5%) 0 0 108


103 (95%) 4 (4%) 1 (1%) 0 108

What monitoring/inspection systems will be instituted? 98 (91%) 9 (8%) 0 1 (1%) 108


Question: So far we have called the concept “reusing purified water”. Which of the following terms/labels creates the best image?

Obviously from the lower percentages, none of these terms resonated with respondents. Reclaiming purified Water had the highest score for “best” at 47% of the respondents.

Table 2.5 So far we have called the concept “reusing purified water”. Which of the following terms/labels creates the best image?

Communities N=107 Best So So Worst Totals

Reclaiming water for beneficial uses 39 (38%) 57 (55%) 7 (7%) 103

Reclaiming water 20 (20%) 74 (73%) 8 (8%) 102

Recycling water 31 (30%) 65 (62%) 9 (9%) 105

Reusing wastewater 9 (9%) 42 (40%) 53 (51%) 104

Reusing treated wastewater 36 (34%) 44 (42%) 25 (24%) 105

Reusing wasted water 8 (8%) 39 (38%) 57 (55%) 104

Reusing purified water 50 (47%) 41 (38%) 16 (15%) 107

Respondents also made the following comments:

� Getting into the issue of greywater vs. blackwater � Shouldn’t hide that its wastewater � All have pros and cons depending on how they are presented � Reclaimed water/recycled water � Reclaimed waste water? � Stay away from the word “waste” � Reusing purified water label is misleading but sounds good. However word purified classifies it as a

type of water and sounds like drinking water. � Reusing treated wastewater accurately describes what is happening

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Reusing wasted water

Reusing wastewater

Reclaiming water

Recycling water

Reusing treated wastewater

Reclaiming water for beneficial uses

Reusing purified water

8%

9%

20%

30%

34%

38%

47%

38%

40%

73%

62%

42%

55%

38%

55%

51%

8%

9%

25%

7%

15%

Chart 2.5 % responses to which label creates the best image

Best So So Worst


� Question is misleading. Have problem with “Best Image”. � Clean water sustainability program � Call it what it is. Don’t hide it � Use the right words � If you mention waste, people will avoid it � The term “reusing purified water” implies drinkable which is not true � Purple pipe system � Recycling is a recognized safe term

Question: Which of the following water conservation measures do you practice?

Respondents mentioned they practice these other water conservation measures:

� A pressure washer uses 1-3 vs 12 gal normal hose � Install rain barrel � Watering receptacle to use rainfall to water plants. Turn tap on only when wetting toothbrush � Should always take car to commercial washing facilities � Steam vegetables rather than boil. Run tap when brushing teeth only to rinse off toothbrush � Timer on sprinklers for lawns � Don’t flush toilets every time. Rainwater for garden � When its yellow - let it mellow � Farm measures - tanks of water for livestock � Gravel driveway, no pool � Heated pool with roof units � Should always take car to commercial washing facilities � Drip irrigation in garden and rain barrel

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Installing toilet water saving devices. Early closure toilet flappers or toilet dams

We don’t let the faucet run while we clean vegetables. We rinse them in a stoppered sink or a pan of clean water.

We reduced our water needs by planIng drought-‐resistant trees and plants.

Installing a bathroom faucet aerators

Replacing normal kitchen faucets with faucet aerators.

Replacing our exisIng toilet with a new low flush model

Installing water saving showerheads

As appliances or fixtures wear out, we replace them with water-‐saving models.

Use our automaIc dishwasher only for full loads.

43%

45%

45%

64%

68%

74%

77%

88%

96%

Chart 2.6 % respondents who "always" do following water conserva:on measures


Table 2.6 Which of the following water conservation measures do you practice?

All respondents N=108 Always Sometimes Never Totals

Replacing normal kitchen faucets with faucet aerators. 72 (68%) 13 (12%) 21 (20%) 106

Use our automatic dishwasher only for full loads. 92 (96%) 2 (2%) 2 (2%) 96


49 (45%) 41 (38%) 18 (17%) 108

As appliances or fixtures wear out, we replace them with water-saving models.

94 (88%) 12 (11%) 1 (1%) 107

Replacing our existing toilet with a new low flush model 78 (74%) 16 (15%) 11 (10%) 105

Installing toilet water saving devices. Early closure toilet flappers or toilet dams

45 (43%) 12 (11%) 44 (42%) 101

Installing water saving showerheads 83 (77%) 12 (11%) 13 (12%) 108

Installing a bathroom faucet aerators 66 (64%) 11 (11%) 26 (25%) 103

We reduced our water needs by planting drought-resistant trees and plants.

40 (45%) 11 (12%) 38 (43%) 89


Summary of Section 2- Acceptable and Non-Acceptable UsesTop 10 “Not Acceptable Uses” of treated water from wastewater plants

� Swimming Pools ......................................................57% of respondents said not acceptable � Public Swimming Pools .........................................56% � Laundries ....................................................................32% � Food Crops .................................................................25% � School Grounds .......................................................20% � Fisheries Management ..........................................18% � Public Parks/Athletic Fields ..................................16% � Maintaining Pond Levels, Fountains, etc ........16% � Lawn/Garden Watering .........................................15% � Air Conditioning ......................................................14%

Top 10 “Yes Acceptable Uses” of treated water from wastewater plants

� Flushing Wastewater Pipes ..................................94% of respondents said yes acceptable � Cooling Power Plants .............................................93% � Gravel Washing ........................................................92% � Toilet Flushing ..........................................................92% � Sod Farming ..............................................................90% � Mixing Concrete ......................................................90% � Industrial Parks .........................................................89% � Golf Courses ..............................................................86% � Commercial Nurseries ...........................................84% � Non-Food Crops .......................................................83%

Top 10 “Maybe acceptable Uses” of treated water from wastewater plants � School Grounds .......................................................30% of respondents said maybe � Fisheries Management ..........................................29% � Wetland Enhancement ..........................................24% � Laundries ....................................................................20% � Maintaining Pond Levels, Fountains, etc ........20% � Stream Flow Augmentation ................................20% � Public Parks/Athletic Fields ..................................19% � Snow/Ice Making .....................................................18% � Public Swimming Pools .........................................18% � Food Crops .................................................................17%

I would support reusing purified water because… � 68% -because it allows for the beneficial recycling of water and nutrients � 65% -because it will reduce the amount of phosphorus and other nutrients going into Lake


wastewater into streams and lakes � 46% - because it will reduce the need to expand wastewater treatment plants to meet growing

population needs in the watershed


Whose opinions about a proposal to reuse purified water would you trust the most?

� Public Health Units .................................................47% of respondents rated very trustworthy � Conservation Authorities .....................................42% � University Professors/Experts .............................31% � Local Municipalities ................................................27% � Provincial Government/Agencies .....................21% � Regional Governments .........................................19% � Federal Government/Agencies ..........................19% � Special Interest Groups .........................................11% � Consultants ................................................................7% � Media (Newspapers, TV) .......................................2% � Internet .......................................................................1%

How important are each of the following questions to you? � What are the human and environmental health risks? ...................................................................95% � What safeguards are there to protect human and environmental health? .............................95% � What are the costs and benefits of the scheme? ...............................................................................93% � What will the purified water be used for? ie. What applications? ................................................93% � What monitoring/inspection systems will be instituted?...............................................................91% � Who receives the benefits and who pays the costs? ........................................................................88% � What sources of water will be reused? ..................................................................................................86% � Where else has this been done before and with what degree of success? ..............................86% � What type of system is it? Is there a complete description of the proposed system? .........85% � What is the need and justification for reusing purified water?.....................................................77% � Who are the target users? ..........................................................................................................................71%

So far we have called the concept “reusing purified water”. Which of the following terms/labels creates the best image?

� Reusing purified water ..........................................47% of respondents ranked this term as “best” � Reclaiming water for beneficial uses ................38% � Reusing treated wastewater ................................34% � Recycling water ........................................................30% � Reclaiming water .....................................................20% � Reusing wastewater ...............................................9% � Reusing wasted water ...........................................8%

Which of the following water conservation measures do you practice? � Use our automatic dishwasher only for full loads. ............................................................................96% � As appliances or fixtures wear out, we replace them with water-saving models. .................88% � Installing water saving showerheads .....................................................................................................77% � Replacing our existing toilet with a new low flush model .............................................................74% � Replacing normal kitchen faucets with faucet aerators. .................................................................68% � Installing a bathroom faucet aerators ...................................................................................................64% � We don’t let the faucet run while we clean vegetables. We rinse them in . .............................45% � We reduced our water needs by planting drought-resistant trees and plants. ......................45% � Installing toilet water saving devices. Early closure toilet flappers or toilet dams ................43%


4.3 If the study concludes that reusing purified water is feasible and acceptable, then answers to the following questions would be helpful

Studies in other jurisdictions have found that public acceptance of reusing purified water is high when the following conditions exist. From your perspective, do you agree or disagree with these conditions?

Not unexpectedly, 92% of survey respondents gave public health the top condition followed by 87% who indicated that protection of the environment was next. The following is a list of the conditions ranked in descending order:

� Protection of public health is clear. ........................................................................................................92% � Protection of the environment is a clear benefit of reusing purified water. ............................87% � Promotion of water conservation is a clear benefit of reusing purified water. .......................83% � Confidence in local management of public utilities and technologies is high.. ....................82% � The degree of human contact is minimal, i.e. I don’t have to drink it, wash in it, etc. ..........80% � Role of reusing purified water in the overall water supply scheme is clear. ............................80% � Cost of treatment and distribution technologies and systems is reasonable. ........................77% � Perception of the quality of reusing purified water is high. ..........................................................76% � Awareness of water supply problems in the community is high.................................................68%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Awareness of water supply problems in the community is high.

Percep?on of the quality of reusing purified water is high.

Cost of treatment and distribu?on technologies and systems is reasonable.

The degree of human contact is minimal, i.e. I don’t have to drink it, wash in it, etc.

Role of reusing purified water in the overall water supply scheme is clear.

Confidence in local management of public u?li?es and technologies is high..

Promo?on of water conserva?on is a clear benefit of reusing purified water.

Protec?on of the environment is a clear benefit of reusing purified water.

Protec?on of public health is clear.

68%

76%

77%

80%

80%

82%

83%

87%

92%

19%

19%

18%

16%

12%

15%

11%

9%

6%

8%

5%

5%

3%

6%

6%

4%

4%

3%

5%

1%

1%

1%

2%

0%

2%

0%

1%

Chart 3.1 % of respondents who agree with these condi6ons

Agree Tend to Agree Tend to Disagree Disagree


Table 3.1 From your perspective, do you agree or disagree with these conditions?

(All Respondents) N=108 Agree Tend to Agree

Tend to Disagree

Disagree Totals


86 (80%) 17 (16%) 3 (3%) 1 (1%) 107

Protection of public health is clear.

99 (92%) 6 (6%) 3 (3%) 1 (1%) 108

Protection of the environment is a clear benefit of reusing purified water.

93 (87%) 10 (9%) 4 (4%) 0 107

Promotion of water conservation is a clear benefit of reusing purified water.

90 (83%) 12 (11%) 4 (4%) 2 (2%) 108

Cost of treatment and distribution technologies and systems is reasonable.

82(77%) 19 (18%) 5 (5%) 1 (1%) 107


73 (68%) 21 (19%) 9 (8%) 5 (5%) 108


86 (80%) 13 (12%) 6 (6%) 2 (2%) 107

Perception of the quality of reusing purified water is high.

81 (76%) 20 (19%) 5 (5%) 1 (1%) 107

Confidence in local management of public utilities and technologies is high..

85 (82%) 16 (15%) 6 (6%) 0 107

Would you be prepared to pay a surcharge on your water bill for the cost of a centralized system for reusing purified water if it was shown to provide an environmental benefit and/or was the lowest cost alternative”?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Georgina

Bradford

Barrie

Outside the 3 communi?es

Total -‐ All respondents

34%

48%

53%

65%

44%

43%

33%

18%

18%

34%

23%

19%

29%

12%

22%

Chart 3.3 % respondents willing to pay for a centralized water reuse system

Yes Maybe No


Table 3.2 Would you be prepared to pay a surcharge on your water bill for the cost of a centralized system for reusing purified water if it was shown to provide an environmental benefit and/or was the lowest cost alternative”?

All Respondents N=107 Yes Maybe No Totals

Georgina 18 (34%) 23 (43%) 12 (23%) 53

Bradford 10 (48%) 7 (33%) 4 (19%) 21

Barrie 9 (53%) 3 (18%) 5 (29%) 17

Outside the 3 communities 11 (65%) 3 (18%) 2 (12%) 16

Total - All respondents 35 (44%) 27 (34%) 17 (22%) 107

If yes or maybe, how much of an annual surcharge would you be willing to pay?

Table 3.3 If yes or maybe, how much of an annual surcharge would you be willing to pay?

N=73 $100 a year

$200 a year

$300 a year

$400 a year

$500 a year

Totals

Georgina 26 (49%) 6 (11%) 3 (6%) 0 2 (4%) 37

Bradford 12 (57%) 4 (19%) 1 (5%) 0 0 17

Barrie 5 (29%) 2 (12%) 2 (12%) 0 1 (6%) 10

Outside the 3 communities 12 (57%) 4 (19%) 1 (5%) 0 0 17

Total - All respondents 44(60%) 18 (25%) 10 (14%) 1 (1%) 3 (4%) 73

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Georgina Bradford Barrie Outside the 3 communi?es

49% 57%

29%

57%

11%

19%

12%

19% 6%

5%

12%

5%

0%

0%

0%

0%

4%

0%

6%

0%

Chart 3.3 % respondents answers to how much of an annual surcharge would you be willing to pay?

$100 a year $200 a year $300 a year $400 a year $500 a year


Do you have any concerns if the use of the purified water was limited to commercial and industrial users and paid for by them?

Table 3.4 Do you have any concerns if the use of the purified water was limited to commercial and industrial users and paid for by them?

All Respondents N=108 Yes Maybe No Totals

Georgina 6 (11%) 3 (6%) 44 83%) 53

Bradford 7 (33%) 4 19%) 10 (48%) 21

Barrie 2 (12%) 2 (12%) 13 (76%) 17

Outside the 3 communities 2 (12%) 2 (12%) 13 (74%) 17

Total - All respondents 17 (16%) 11 (10%) 80 (74%) 108

What do you think the biggest barriers are or would be to gaining public acceptance for reusing purified water?

Respondents answered this open-ended question with a wide variety of comments about barriers. The most frequently mentioned barriers were:

� Concerns about protection of public health � Lack of confidence in management of public utilities/authorities � Lack of public understanding about water reuse � Cost of the system and who pays

Concerns about protection of public health � Safety would be an issue and public confidence regarding health of human and environmental

health � Assurances that it is safe to use � Confidence in public health � Perception that its dangerous � Must be safe and healthy � Health impacts perceived � Assurances with regard to safety � Health aspects and affect on food � Fear of contamination, accidents like Walkerton � Walkerton fallout - system is foolproof - will not let accidents happen � Effect on people’s health � Public health is clear � Worry about chemicals in it � Afraid of cross contamination � Are pharmaceuticals still in the water? � How will it be engineered, constructed and monitored to ensure long term public safety? � Confidence that health is not at risk � Comfort level in general

Protection of the environment � Environmental concerns � How is it going to protect the environment


� Clarifying that it will be environmentally sound � How is it going to protect the environment

Lack of confidence in management of public utilities/authorities � The degree of what they tell us � Is what you are telling me true? � Lack of confidence in quality � Not being clear about veracity of water � Gaining trust � Increase trust in authorities � Trust the powers that be � Faith in monitoring of quality � Quality assurances � Don’t trust anyone � Obtain confidence concerning the safety of the system � Credibility of what we are told � Proof of purification � Being honest � Is it really purified, standards and compliance

Lack of public understanding about water reuse � Awareness of need � Lack of understanding � Education � Media paranoia � Have to convince people it is clean enough � Understanding the concept of it � Getting people past the idea of it being waste water � Education, people are ignorant about it � Perception of public toward quality � Understanding exactly what it is � Public perception of the “wastewater” � Getting over the mind set of people thinking about using treated sewage water � Education because of health, cleanliness especially on consumable crops � A real ad campaign to make people aware of benefits � Ignorance of need and technology � Education because of health, cleanliness especially on consumable crops

Cost of treatment and distribution � Money/taxes � The uses, distribution, costs, monitoring, who pays? � Benefits vs. Cost � Cost and benefits to the public not just commercial users � Money/ cost would be the biggest concern � Too high cost to user of water system then they won’t use it � Cost per household � Money if everything else is ok � Cost, viability, I don’t think public will use this water near their house or at schools � Perception of unnecessary expenditure � Costs- who pays and how much? � What are net impact to the average person - cost of water � Huge cost that is currently not necessary - improve the effluent first from treatment plants � Should be capital cost to the development community


Infrastructure issues and challenges � Installation of infrastructure � Paying for the infrastructure - especially retrofitting � Possibility of raw sewage overflow in storm conditions � Cross-contamination � Disruption during construction � Make sure people have the necessary knowledge and make sure necessary studies are done for all

the different soil types � How it will be engineered and monitored

Other � There should not be any barriers to this idea � No matter what you do with water, there is an issue! � No shortage of water in this watershed - easy sell in Arizona. It would be better to increase

treatment of current effluent by using xenon membrane technology - technologies are available and it would be money better spent

� If there was an odour, people would stop using it

Question: Would you like to continue to be involved in this dialogue?

Table 3.5 Would you like to continue to be involved in this dialogue?

All Respondents N=108 Yes Maybe No TotalsGeorgina 22 (42%) 12 (23%) 19 (36%) 53Bradford 15 (71%) 4 (19%) 2 (10%) 21Barrie 12 (71%) 2 (12%) 3 (18%) 17Outside the 3 communities 15 (88%) 2 (19%) 0 17Total - All respondents 64 (59%) 20 (19%) 24 (22%) 108

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Georgina

Bradford

Barrie

Outside the 3 communi<es

Total -‐ All respondents

42%

71%

71%

88%

59%

23%

19%

12%

19%

19%

36%

10%

18%

0%

22%

Chart 3.5 % respondents who would like to con7nue involvement in this dialogue

Yes Maybe No


If yes, how would you like to be involved?

Table 3.6 If yes, how would you like to be involved?

All Respondents N=108 Yes Totals

Include me on the mailing list for future information, newsletters 63 (58%) 108

Invite me to any focus groups/workshops or public information forums 44 (41%) 108

Include me in any future surveys 60 (56%) 108

Include me in any future Task Forces or Working Groups on this topic 28 (26%) 108

Advise me of any Website on reusing purified water 57 (53%) 108

Send me copies of any newspaper articles and useful reports on reusing purified water 41 (38%) 108

Respondents also mentioned a number of additional communication channels:

� Keep notices to a minimum � Through the tax bill � E-mail � Send only reports not newspaper articles, send only electronic copies of things

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Include me in any future Task Forces or Working Groups on this topic

Send me copies of any newspaper arDcles and useful reports on reusing purified water

Invite me to any focus groups/workshops or public informaDon forums

Advise me of any Website on reusing purified water

Include me in any future surveys

Include me on the mailing list for future informaDon, newsleKers

26%

38%

41%

53%

56%

58%

Chart 3.6 % respondents who want to be involved by various methods


What are the best ways to communicate with you concerning future proposals about reusing purified water?

Table 3.7 What are the best ways to communicate with you concerning future proposals about reusing purified water?

All Respondents N=88 Best So So Worst Totals

Articles in the Local Newspaper 42 (48%) 36 (41%) 10 (11%) 88

Mailed Informational Pamphlets 35 (40%) 36 (41%) 16 (18%) 87

Newsletters 32 (39%) 44 (53%) 7 (8%) 83

Primers/Citizen’s Guides 19 (23%) 40 (49%) 23 (28%) 82

Videos 21 (26%) 30 (37%) 30 (37%) 81

Focus Groups 25 (30%) 36 (44%) 21 (26%) 82

Workshops 32 (40%) 34 (42%) 15 (19%) 81

Public Information Meetings 48 (57%) 25 (30%) 11 (13%) 84

Television Programs on Public Channels 33 (41%) 35 (43%) 13 (16%) 81

Information on Websites 53 (61%) 28 (32%) 6 (7%) 87

Webcasting 19 (26%) 33 (45%) 21 (29%) 73

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Primers/Ci5zen’s Guides

Videos

Webcas5ng

Focus Groups

NewsleHers

Mailed Informa5onal Pamphlets

Workshops

Television Programs on Public Channels

Ar5cles in the Local Newspaper

Public Informa5on Mee5ngs

Informa5on on Websites

23%

26%

26%

30%

39%

40%

40%

41%

48%

57%

61%

49%

37%

45%

44%

53%

41%

42%

43%

41%

30%

32%

28%

37%

29%

26%

8%

18%

19%

16%

11%

13%

7%

Chart 3.7 % responses on best ways to communicate with you concerning future proposals on water reuse

Best So So Worst


Respondents also mentioned the following:

� Email/electronic newsletter � inserts into municipal bills � Public displays libraries � Telephone (person to person) � Use local organizations as a partner to communicate to public � Need visuals. Set up model display showing process & test it at public info meeting or at public

venue permanently � Piggyback on communiques from the Town Officials � developing educational materials

Are there any other comments you would like to make? � How would the water be treated? Would it be bacteria free? I don’t know how it is being treated so

hard to answer Section 2 � How potable is it when it leaves the plant? Testing…are we going to find out later that we have

another Walkerton?...need regular testing � I hope it doesn’t take a long time to implement it. It needs to be done. � The purified water should be directed back to the headworks of the associated water treatment

plant � In theory it is a great option that should be pursued if financially feasible. Most tax payers believe

they should get everything for nothing, so “costs” will be important. Excellent Questionnaire � Don’t know what is in it and that concerns me. Should be no extra cost to residents because using

less potable water and don’t need to purify as much potable water � Idea is good and need to start. Worrying more about water supplies and quality � As an Australian, I’m quite aware of this system. � Cost will be prohibitive for existing homes. Makes sense for new development if it is safe. � I think this survey is biased to get the answer you want � I think positive move to save our lake for future generations � I think it is wonderful if they could do it � I think is something to look into. If there are benefits to it, then yes. If there really a need? � Find it interesting and food for thought. Gets you thinking � Concern is that all the chemicals in water are NOT taken out ( I.e. drugs down toilet) � Want to know that they are doing it right! � Exactly how it is treated. Suspicious of government standards � Like idea Georgina thinking to do something proactive with their resources instead of wasting

them. If going to reuse wastewater, let’s do it successfully and put Georgina on the map as a leader in environmental technologies.

� It could be good if they can prove it is safe and it is kept out of the house. Testing important � Everyone will give the same answers. Sounds like an infomercial � Local improvement charge. First time heard of it, I’d like to find out more. � Need to be included in discussion. Safety issue for outstrips cost issue by 90% to 10% in terms of

importance and how could you guarantee that. Frankly, I would rather go on wasting water if it wasn’t 100% safe.

� It is looking to the future and probably something that will have to come and should start looking at it now

� It’s a good idea and residential and big suburbs need it � Something I had never considered and living on Lake Simcoe I take it for granted water will always

be there. It will be hard to convince people who have lived here their whole lives that it might be at risk in their lifetime.

� Concerns on cost vs. benefits and usage. We need commitment from public to use it. � Like the concept, have questions like monitoring, levels of treatment etc. It has to be safe � What infrastructure is involved? What are the cost/benefits? He is concerned, as a land developer,

about increased costs imposed on new housing


� I do not think the survey is “realistic” in portraying the views that will represent the citizens interest � Other ways - household systems; collecting rain water, systems in people’s homes. Biggest

advantage - remove fire fighting from water use; capacity has to be 15% over designed therefore capital. Big costs to cost saving - add the 3rd pipe - costs and long term maintenance

� I think it’s a good idea � Very interested in the technical aspects. Very curious about cost/benefit analysis for Lake Simcoe

watershed. In terms of “consumptive analysis” - a greater consumptive use - need to know more. Impacts on Canada/US intra-basin flow agreements. Impacts on stream flow

� This info is great but need more information to assess facts � As long as it is done properly, then I have no problems � Requested a copy of the final report � Good survey for all audiences. Good framing of the issue. Face to face interviews are better � Have seen how good wastewater treatment plants work. In future surveys - include tours, more

hands on for all the people - more involvement with public � Water a finite supply -more important than oil. We are going to be blocked from pulling water out of

Great Lakes. Low flush toilets should be mandatory � Seems to mix up grey water with reused purified water. Requires separate system - costly - would

require sufficient users. Might limit application � In approx 2006 or 2007 CH2M HILL did a study on this which would be relevant for policies and

standards especially � Georgina - water centre proposal � Intrigued, way of future � No trust in LSRCA - thinks that they have not done their job, and the federal government initiative

was necessary - LSRCA wastes money � A bad idea - don’t like the concept. Will not encourage water conservation - will encourage waste.

Will deplete streams and flow into lake, since less effluent. Cost is horrendous. All round bad idea! � Should be looking at using greywater first. If we can put that out on parks and golf course it would

give it another purification cycle before it enters the lake. Much phosphorus is lost as sludge � Something to consider, pursue. A good idea to look at � I’m involved with the golf industry and I know this has been used in the US for golf courses. But I

think they have better infrastructure than we do � Pleased to see this survey - makes good sense. Bottom line is cost - have installed water meters with

no issues. Part of a whole ethic of making better use � Reuse has a big footprint, hydro cost, infrastructure cost with a whole system and it affects the

environment. Environmental costing is key - investment in treatment is a better strategy in this area. � Long overdue proposal for a water rich society like ours � What infrastructure is involved? What are the cost/benefits? He is concerned, as a land developer,

about increased costs imposed on new housing � It’s a good initiative


Summary of Section 3- If the study concludes that reusing purified water is feasible and acceptable

Studies in other jurisdictions have found that public acceptance of reusing purified water is high when the following conditions exist. From your perspective, do you agree or disagree with these conditions?

� Protection of public health is clear. ........................................................................................................92% � Protection of the environment is a clear benefit of reusing purified water. ............................87% � Promotion of water conservation is a clear benefit of reusing purified water. .......................83% � Confidence in local management of public utilities and technologies is high.. ....................82% � The degree of human contact is minimal, i.e. I don’t have to drink it, wash in it, etc. ..........80% � Role of reusing purified water in the overall water supply scheme is clear. ............................80% � Cost of treatment and distribution technologies and systems is reasonable. ........................77% � Perception of the quality of reusing purified water is high. ..........................................................76% � Awareness of water supply problems in the community is high.................................................68%

Would you be prepared to pay a surcharge on your water bill for the cost of a centralized system for reusing purified water if it was shown to provide an environmental benefit and/or was the lowest cost alternative”?

� Yes .................................................................................44% � Maybe ..........................................................................34% � No ..................................................................................22%

If yes or maybe, how much of an annual surcharge would you be willing to pay?

� $100 a year .................................................................60% � $200 a year .................................................................25% � $300 a year .................................................................14% � $400 a year .................................................................1% � $500 a year .................................................................4%

Do you have any concerns if the use of the purified water was limited to commercial and industrial users and paid for by them?

� Yes .................................................................................16% � Maybe ..........................................................................10% � No ..................................................................................74%

What do you think the biggest barriers are or would be to gaining public acceptance for reusing purified water?

� Concerns about protection of public health � Protection of the environment � Lack of confidence in management of public utilities/authorities � Lack of public understanding about water reuse � Cost of treatment and distribution was repeatedly mentioned


Would you like to continue to be involved in this dialogue? - Yes.................59% - Maybe..........19% - No..................22%

If yes, how would you like to be involved? � Include me on the mailing list for future information, newsletters ............................................58% � Include me in any future surveys ............................................................................................................56% � Advise me of any Website on reusing purified water .......................................................................53% � Invite me to any focus groups/workshops or public information forums ................................41% � Send me copies of any newspaper articles and useful reports on reusing purified water 38% � Include me in any future Task Forces or Working Groups on this topic.....................................26%

What are the best ways to communicate with you concerning future proposals about reusing purified water?

� Information on Websites ......................................61% � Public Information Meetings ..............................57% � Articles in the Local Newspaper.........................48% � Television Programs on Public Channels ........41% � Mailed Informational Pamphlets .......................40% � Workshops .................................................................40% � Newsletters ................................................................39% � Focus Groups ............................................................30% � Videos ..........................................................................26% � Webcasting ................................................................26% � Primers/Citizen’s Guides .......................................23%


5.0 Preliminary Conclusions from the Survey

5.1 There is an interest in the concept of water reuse

Familiarity with the concept of reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants? � 39% indicated not familiar � 19% indicated [2} on the scale � 24% indicated [3} on the scale � 7% indicated [4] on the scale � 11% indicated very familiar

Is there a need?

Survey respondents generally agreed (78% agree plus tend to agree) to the question “Do you think there is a need to reuse purified water from wastewater treatment plants in the Lake Simcoe watershed?”


Is it a good idea for non-potable use?

Again, survey respondents generally agreed (87% agree plus tend to agree) to the question “Do you think reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants for non-potable uses is a good idea?


Familiarity with water/wastewater terms

In answer to the question “ Please indicate how familiar you are with the following terms”, there was a relatively high degree of familiarity ( with the exceptions of blackwater, aquifer recharge and reclaimed water):

� Potable water ............................................................73% indicated they knew what the term means � Wastewater ................................................................81% � Greywater ...................................................................75% � Reclaimed water ......................................................45% � Recycled water .........................................................57% � Blackwater .................................................................37% � Stormwater ................................................................81% � Aquifer recharge ......................................................51% � Non-potable water .................................................75%


5.2 Definitely not potable uses and concerns about some non-potable usesIn response to the question “Please indicate which uses of purified water from sewage treatment plants would be acceptable or not acceptable to you?”, Survey respondents indicated the following:

Yes Acceptable � Flushing Wastewater Pipes ..................................94% � Cooling Power Plants .............................................93% � Gravel Washing ........................................................92% � Toilet Flushing ..........................................................92% � Sod Farming ..............................................................90% � Mixing Concrete ......................................................90% � Industrial Parks .........................................................89% � Golf Courses ..............................................................86% � Commercial Nurseries ...........................................84% � Non-Food Crops .......................................................83% � Fire Fighting ..............................................................83% � Street Cleaning .........................................................83% � Equipment Cleaning ..............................................82% � Dust Control ..............................................................81% � Car Washes .................................................................80% � Washing Cars, Fences, etc .....................................78% � Lawn/Garden Watering .........................................72% � Air Conditioning ......................................................69% � Snow/Ice Making .....................................................67% � Maintaining Pond Levels, Fountains, etc ........64% � Wetland Enhancement ..........................................63% � Public Parks/Athletic Fields ..................................62% � Stream Flow Augmentation ................................60% � Food Crops .................................................................53% � School Grounds .......................................................47% � Fisheries Management ..........................................47% � Laundries ....................................................................44% � Swimming Pools ......................................................24% � Public Swimming Pools .........................................23%

Not Acceptable

Please note that we had not included potable uses to avoid potential public controversy. Hence drinking water, bathing, etc. were not included in the list.

� Swimming Pools ......................................................57% � Public Swimming Pools .........................................56% � Laundries ....................................................................32% � Food Crops .................................................................25% � School Grounds .......................................................20% � Fisheries Management ..........................................18% � Public Parks/Athletic Fields ..................................16% � Maintaining Pond Levels, Fountains, etc ........16% � Lawn/Garden Watering .........................................15% � Air Conditioning ......................................................14% � Snow/Ice Making .....................................................13% � Stream Flow Augmentation ................................11% � Washing Cars, Fences, etc .....................................11% � Wetland Enhancement ..........................................9% � Fire Fighting ..............................................................5% � Commercial Nurseries ...........................................4% � Dust Control ..............................................................4% � Car Washes .................................................................4% � Toilet Flushing ..........................................................4%


� Sod Farming ..............................................................3% � Golf Courses ..............................................................3% � Non-Food Crops .......................................................2% � Industrial Parks .........................................................2% � Equipment Cleaning ..............................................2% � Street Cleaning .........................................................2% � Cooling Power Plants .............................................1% � Gravel Washing ........................................................1% � Mixing Concrete ......................................................0% � Flushing Wastewater Pipes ..................................0%

Maybe � School Grounds .......................................................30% � Fisheries Management ..........................................29% � Wetland Enhancement ..........................................24% � Laundries ....................................................................20% � Maintaining Pond Levels, Fountains, etc ........20% � Stream Flow Augmentation ................................20% � Public Parks/Athletic Fields ..................................19% � Snow/Ice Making .....................................................18% � Public Swimming Pools .........................................18% � Food Crops .................................................................17% � Car Washes .................................................................17% � Swimming Pools ......................................................17% � Non-Food Crops .......................................................14% � Dust Control ..............................................................14% � Air Conditioning ......................................................14% � Equipment Cleaning ..............................................13% � Street Cleaning .........................................................13% � Lawn/Garden Watering .........................................13% � Commercial Nurseries ...........................................12% � Golf Courses ..............................................................11% � Fire Fighting ..............................................................10% � Washing Cars, Fences, etc .....................................10% � Industrial Parks .........................................................9% � Mixing Concrete ......................................................9% � Sod Farming ..............................................................7% � Gravel Washing ........................................................7% � Cooling Power Plants .............................................6% � Flushing Wastewater Pipes ..................................6% � Toilet Flushing ..........................................................5%

The responses regarding acceptable and unacceptable uses is consistent with similar surveys in other jurisdictions

5.3 Primary reasons for supporting water reuse are environmentalInterestingly, the primary reasons for supporting water reuse were revealed by survey respondent’s answers to the following question “I would support reusing purified water because…”:

� 68% -because it allows for the beneficial recycling of water and nutrients � 65% -because it will reduce the amount of phosphorus and other nutrients going into Lake



wastewater into streams and lakes � 46% - because it will reduce the need to expand wastewater treatment plants to meet

growing population needs in the watershed

5.4 Biggest barriers to gaining public acceptance for reusing purified water

Conditions for acceptance

The survey respondents were asked an initial question “Studies in other jurisdictions have found that public acceptance of reusing purified water is high when the following conditions exist. From your perspective, do you agree or disagree with these conditions?”:

The following is a list of the conditions in descending order with respondent ranking:

� What are the human and environmental health risks? ...................................................................95% � What safeguards are there to protect human and environmental health? .............................95% � What are the costs and benefits of the scheme? ...............................................................................93% � What will the purified water be used for? ie. What applications? ................................................93% � What monitoring/inspection systems will be instituted?...............................................................91% � Who receives the benefits and who pays the costs? ........................................................................88% � What sources of water will be reused? ..................................................................................................86% � Where else has this been done before and with what degree of success? ..............................86% � What type of system is it? Is there a complete description of the proposed system? .........85% � What is the need and justification for reusing purified water?.....................................................77% � Who are the target users? ..........................................................................................................................71%

Sample of Respondent’s List of BarriersIn response to the question “What do you think the biggest barriers are or would be to gaining public acceptance for reusing purified water?”, Survey respondents listed the following:


Concerns about protection of public health � Safety would be an issue and public confidence regarding health of human and environmental

health � Assurances that it is safe to use � Confidence in public health � Perception that its dangerous � Health impacts perceived � Health aspects and affect on food � Fear of contamination, accidents like Walkerton � Effect on people’s health � Public health is clear � Worry about chemicals in it � Afraid of cross contamination � Are pharmaceuticals still in the water?

Lack of confidence in management of public utilities/authorities � The degree of what they tell us � Is what you are telling me true? � Not being clear about veracity of water � Gaining trust � Increase trust in authorities � Trust the powers that be � Faith in monitoring of quality � Quality assurances � Don’t trust anyone � Obtain confidence concerning the safety of the system � Credibility of what we are told � Proof of purification � Being honest

Lack of public understanding about water reuse � Awareness of need � Lack of understanding � Have to convince people it is clean enough � Understanding the concept of it � Getting people past the idea of it being waste water � Education, people are ignorant about it � Understanding exactly what it is � Public perception of the “wastewater” � Getting over the mindset of people thinking about using treated sewage water � A real AD campaign to make people aware of benefits � Ignorance of need and technology � Education because of health, cleanliness especially on consumable crops

Cost of treatment and distribution � Money/taxes � The uses, distribution, costs, monitoring, who pays? � Cost and benefits to the public not just commercial users � Money cost would be the biggest concern � Too high cost to user of water system then they won’t use it � Huge cost that is currently not necessary - improve the effluent first from treatment plants � Cost per household � Money if everything else is ok � Cost, viability, I don’t think public will use this water near their house or at schools � Perception of unnecessary expenditure


Protection of the environment � How is it going to protect the environment � Clarifying that it will be environmentally sound

5.5 Who do the stakeholders/public trust the most?The literature on public acceptance of water reuse schemes considers the trustworthiness of the proponent as an important factor in the stakeholders/public’s willingness to support such schemes. In response to the question “Whose opinions about a proposal to reuse purified water would you trust the most?”, the following percentages indicate the number of respondents rating them as very trustworthy:

� Public Health Units .................................................47% � Conservation Authorities .....................................42% � University Professors/Experts .............................31% � Consultants ................................................................7% � Local Municipalities ................................................27% � Regional Governments .........................................19% � Provincial Government/Agencies .....................21% � Federal Government/Agencies ..........................19% � Special Interest Groups .........................................11% � Internet .......................................................................1% � Media (Newspapers, TV) .......................................2%

5.6 On the Issue of CostWhen asked the question “Would you be prepared to pay a surcharge on your water bill for the cost of a centralized system for reusing purified water if it was shown to provide an environmental benefit and/or was the lowest cost alternative”?”, Survey respondents indicated the following:

� Yes ................................................................................44% � Maybe ..........................................................................34% � No ..................................................................................22%

When asked the question “If yes or maybe, how much of an annual surcharge would you be willing to pay?”, Survey respondents indicated the following:

� $100 a year .................................................................60% � $200 a year .................................................................25% � $300 a year .................................................................14% � $400 a year .................................................................1% � $500 a year .................................................................4%

When asked the question “Do you have any concerns if the use of the purified water was limited to commercial and industrial users and paid for by them?”, Survey respondents indicated the following:

� Yes .................................................................................16% � Maybe ..........................................................................10% � No ..................................................................................74%

From these responses, it would appear that there is some receptivity to paying some surcharge for water reuse...but we should not overestimate the support!


5.7 Solid Stakeholder/Public Interest in further involvement

59% said “yes”When asked the question “Would you like to continue to be involved in this dialogue?”, 59% said “yes” and a further 19% said “maybe” and 22% said “no”..

58% want to be put on a mailing list for future informationIn response to the question “ how would you like to be involved?”, respondents indicated the following:

� Include me on the mailing list ...........................58% � Include me in any future surveys ......................56% � Advise me of any website ....................................53% � Focus groups/workshops or forums .................41% � Newspaper articles and useful reports ...........38% � Future Task Forces or Working Groups ............26%

Public Information Meetings and Websites were preferredAnd in response to the question “What are the best ways to communicate with you concerning future proposals about reusing purified water?”, Survey respondents indicated the following preferences:

� Information on Websites ......................................61% � Public Information Meetings ..............................57% � Articles in the Local Newspaper.........................48% � Television Programs on Public Channels ........41% � Mailed Informational Pamphlets .......................40% � Workshops .................................................................40% � Newsletters ................................................................39% � Focus Groups ............................................................30% � Videos ..........................................................................26% � Webcasting ................................................................26% � Primers/Citizen’s Guides .......................................23%

5.8 In ConclusionThe survey interviews were very consistent with the findings of other projects and studies in the US, Australia and Europe:

� Although only 43% thought there was a need for water reuse, 62% thought it was a good idea � Public support most non-potable uses but any non-potable use that may come in contact with

people (especially children) was not acceptable � The primary reasons for supporting water reuse are beneficial recycling of water and nutrients,

reducing the effluent going into the lakes and waterways and reducing the amount of phosphorus and other nutrients going into Lake Simcoe

� The major barriers to gaining public acceptance were described by the respondents as: � Concerns about protection of public health � Lack of confidence in management of public utilities/authorities � Lack of public understanding about water reuse

� It would appear that there is some receptivity to paying some surcharge for water reuse...but we should not overestimate the support

� There is strong stakeholder/public interest in being kept involved with future deliberations regarding water reuse.


This section of the report addresses the need for stakeholder engagement in any water reuse proposal.

“The public strongly supports water reuse for most non-potable uses, although in some Muslim countries that use of waste water for irrigation has been opposed on religious grounds. Public acceptance surveys… indicate that 50% or more of the respondents are opposed to potable reuse, while 5% or less are opposed to irrigation or similar uses in urban areas. People gave generally favorable reviews where there is minimal contact with reclaimed water and the stated reasons for opposing various types of water reuse almost always revolve around health protection. Health concerns were among the stated reasons given for the recent failure of the three planned indirect potable reuse projects in the US..” [Status and Role of Water Reuse-An International View, James Crook, Ph.D., P.E., Jeffrey J. Mosher, Jane M. Casteline, Global Water Research Coalition, August 2005, p. 74]

Therefore, we are proposing a different approach based on some different assumptions and values

“ The real problem is the process. It creates a competition for influence that pits one interest against another. Consultation can set up a zero-sum game where one group wins only if another one loses. This encourages exaggeration, grandstanding and intransigence. It also doesn’t allow participants to talk to each other. Rather, they talk at government, and then months later, government sends out its reply. Under this model, information and communication travels in one direction. There is an alternative. Government does not always have to present itself as the impartial decision maker, especially when there is real controversy over the values and priorities at stake. In such cases, it may be far more helpful to engage in the process more as a facilitator. As such, its primary task would be to get the various stakeholders to begin engaging one another, rather than competing for influence. It is a model that allows information to travel back and forth, between participants. Such a process would give participants a more substantive role. It recognizes the stake individuals have in the issue and in working to resolve it. By joining the process, participants would be actively involved in discussing options, recommending outcomes and then explaining the rationale. In this model, participants would listen to each other, consider the various perspectives, suggest compromises and then work together to propose shared goals, priorities and measures. It would also result in a more coherent set of options for government, instead of the usual shopping list of recommendations.” . [It’s More Than Talk, Listen, Learn and Act, A New Model for Public Engagement The Final Report of the Public Engagement Initiative, Province of New Brunswick April 2008, p. 17]

6.1 “If the ‘public’ is educated then they are likely to change their behaviour”- a misguided and naïve premise

“The lack of acceptance of certain sources or personal uses of recycled water, as revealed through surveys, is often put down to public misconceptions about the risk associated with the practice, their emotions, or their lack of knowledge of treatment efficacy… This view of the problem has led many in the industry to assume that the public’s willingness to accept the risk of large-scale schemes can be changed through education about health risks or through demonstration of the technology. Public education to encourage acceptance of technological solutions is accentuated

6.0 Towards an approach to meaningful engagement of

stakeholders


in water management literature and policy. As expressed by a public participation consultant with experience in the Australian water sector, “there is an amazingly naïve view, in my view, that the way forward is straightforward—that is if the uneducated are educated then they will see things more clearly . . . [and that] . . . if the ‘public’ is educated (whatever that may involve or mean) then they are likely to change their behaviour, and perhaps make it easier for the experts and decision-makers . . . they are likely to then behave in a more rational way” [Risk and Governance in Water Recycling Public Acceptance Revisited, Stenekes et al, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Volume 31 Number 2, March 2006 118-119]

Stenekes then offers the proposition that “the major causes of difficulties in implementing reuse projects, particularly those including IPR, may well include insufficient public knowledge on water and wastewater issues but may also stem from contextual circumstances and fundamentally divergent problem frames among stakeholders. Frames entail different policy discourses: different language, understandings, and perceptions. One participant raised this point at a recent symposium titled “Water—The Australian Dilemma”: “The name of the game is shared meaning. Unless everyone in the conversation understands what we’re talking about, and can contribute to the discourse, then you’ll never get public buy-in. You can be as erudite as you like, and society will mostly ignore you or worse, be stubbornly uncooperative”. Without discounting the potential positive role of public education in water management, the importance of two-way dialogue about deeply held values early in planning processes is often underestimated. Recent national discussion papers on water recycling issues observed that difficulties implementing water recycling often stem from decisions made to implement projects without sufficient public input.” [Risk and Governance in Water Recycling Public Acceptance Revisited, Stenekes et al, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Volume 31 Number 2, March 2006 119]

6.2 Risk controversies associated with recycling water are intrinsically linked with institutional trust and credibility

“ Both experts and the public have knowledge, although these derive from different epistemological and ontological bases. However, the institutional forms and practices of water management tend to be based on the assumption that experts have all the knowledge and that the only issue is how much of that knowledge must be given to the ignorant public. In this framing of the problem, public involvement is seen as the acceptance or rejection of narrowly defined technological propositions and perceptions of risk. Rather than perpetuating a dichotomy between experts and the lay community, as this approach does, the issue could be reformulated in terms of how the different frames of reference about risk and sustainability can be better understood by participants. Achieving this is all the more difficult if the frames of reference, through which risk and sustainability are understood by people, are embedded within institutional rules, routines, and hardware. Understanding this context is important since the evidence suggests that risk controversies associated with recycling water are intrinsically linked with institutional trust and credibility issues… the most common reasons given for nonacceptance of potable recycling as lack of faith in institutions, politicians, and those in charge.” [Risk and Governance in Water Recycling Public


Acceptance Revisited, Stenekes et al, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Volume 31 Number 2, March 2006, 120]

“During interviews with participants in water-recycling initiatives undertaken as part of the current study, values rather than facts tended to underpin participant risk frames. For example, in relation to an assumed level of acceptable risk, a community interest representative involved with the potable reuse proposal in Caloundra-Maroochy reported, “Their opinion of safe and mine are two different versions of what it means” (Stenekes, Colebatch, and Waite 2003). It was not appreciated that further factual information would have little effect on such positions in relation to water recycling because risk issues were coupled closely with personal values and the quality of social networks, for example, trusting technical experts and the organizations they represented…. Research on public involvement in water-recycling projects needs to go beyond the factors affecting public acceptance to involve an examination of the social, institutional, and cultural contexts of specific cases in which recycling is a real possibility (rather than an abstract concept).” [Risk and Governance in Water Recycling Public Acceptance Revisited, Stenekes et al, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Volume 31 Number 2, March 2006, 120]

6.3 Shifting attention from public acceptance of predetermined technological options to engaging stakeholders in meaningful dialogues about their issues and their solutions

“We argue that knowledge and values about the water cycle have shifted, but sustainability objectives have been pursued through existing technically based organizational frameworks that are predisposed to seek public acceptance for existing solutions rather than engaging stakeholders in addressing the problems and finding new solutions. This implies that more opportunities for dialogue and negotiation about water sustainability issues between various stakeholders will be needed, underpinned by new social institutions. Increasing recognition of the need for better community engagement regarding water recycling has led some water agencies to consider participatory planning, shifting attention from public acceptance of predetermined technological options toward ways that public participation might be successfully institutionalized… Participatory institutions are increasingly recognized for their potential to encourage the development of shared values and goals with regard to sustainable water management… In the technological risk literature, it has been argued that communities have local knowledge (e.g., local values, factual and moral reasoning) that could enhance the decision-making process: properly facilitated, this can complement the knowledge of technical


experts, planners, and researchers. Balancing expert and lay knowledge requires a dialogue to be established and maintained between stakeholders, so that public knowledge can find a place in water service planning. Arguments for balancing expert knowledge with public knowledge through participation arise from a “conviction that public values and knowledge could enrich (or challenge) conventionally recognised expertise, producing results that go ‘beyond the capabilities of authoritarian or technocratic methods of policy-making’” [Risk and Governance in Water Recycling Public Acceptance Revisited, Stenekes et al, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Volume 31 Number 2, March 2006, 123]

6.4 The active participation and “ownership” of residents in the decision-making process is essential

Governments and proponents traditionally like to figure out the details of an idea first (usually in private) and then consult the stakeholders/public (the “decide, announce and defend” mentioned earlier).

The problem with water reuse is that a top-down approach will probably be a magnet for concerns and opposition and create competitive and antagonistic divides in the communities. Ergo, begin with the Bottom-up approach.

There are many examples around the world where local communities have rejected recycling proposals because of a failure to take into account the various factors that such communities see as important. The reasons for failure are commonly a lack of coordination between the authorities involved in planning health, water supply and environmental management, and inadequate community consultation on the issues. Part of the problem is probably due to the “top down” expert-based approach to water planning where experts develop solutions and then consult the community. The recent study by Nancarrow et al. (2003) examined a proposal to supply Perth the South West Yarragadee aquifer demonstrated the probability of little trust and certainty in the community concerning the ability of the experts and authorities to conduct investigations, plan for the future and make appropriate decisions. Success stories often show the recycling agenda being driven by community organisations that are able to encourage integration between the various arms of Government. These observations indicate that sustainability cannot be achieved through technical and administrative means alone. The active participation and “ownership” of households and consumers in the decision-making process is essential.

A broad base of support is needed for any water reuse scheme. The changes required can be sometimes revolutionary, and involve drastic modifications of the current ways of doing business. They may risk oppositions from those interest groups who benefit from the status quo. Top-level political support is critical, as well as a broad base of popular support for any water reuse scheme to take place. Ultimately, all affected stakeholders must be convinced of the value of any water reuse scheme. Stakeholder consultations that give voice to all concerns and that provide clear justifications for water reuse, backed up with solid data, is an essential pre-condition of moving forward.


6.5 Opposition to change is a normal response when people are being introduced to new concepts

To begin with, we need to recognize the legitimacy of opposition and not counterattack or retreat into bunkers for protection. We have to undertake and execute an engagement strategy that welcomes debate, nurtures discussion, admits to unknowns with the end result being people making “informed” decisions. One of the dangers of this project is that the proponents and opponents will become too attached to the specific idea/position and unable or unwilling to hear concerns and their underlying causes. We cannot let this project erode into competitiveness or antagonistic attacks. Every aspect of this project has to willingly accept concerns as part of the process of becoming “informed” and eventually making an informed decision…even if the collective decision is a “no”.

Therefore, the process and its principals have to be objective/neutral on the concept of water reuse. The objectivity/neutrality is critical to building credibility and trust with the residents and other stakeholders

6.6 Principles for constructive engagement of stakeholders on water reuse � “ Manage information for all stakeholders

Diverse types of information should be managed to promote learning, communication and mutual understanding among all the stakeholders, given that different people learn and communicate differently. This includes ensuring equal access to information, employing multiple methods of information presentation and communication, and supporting and adhering to individuals information processes and tendencies.

� Maintain individual motivation and demonstrate organizational commitmentPeople should find more good reasons (e.g. benefits for oneself and the community)

than bad reasons (e.g. real or perceived risks) to engage in a public dialogue. Halton Region should aim to ensure and nurture multiple motives for the public to engage, highlighting both individual and community benefits. Halton Region should demonstrate genuine commitment throughout the organization to engage and hear the public and take its concerns seriously.

� Promote communication and public dialogueCommunication and the broader public dialogue should take multiple forms or venues,

and the ongoing at all stages of the decision-making process. We should expect to have to repeat our messages multiple times and in multiple ways before it is truly understood by others. Likewise, stakeholders should expect to have to listen to each other’s messages multiple times and in multiple ways before they understand it. In fact, the quality of the public dialogue is an indicator of the public confidence, trust and relationship with Halton Region

� Ensure fair and sound decision-making and decisionsBoth the decision-making process and the outcome should be perceived as fair and

sound by participants. Fairness includes process, procedural dimensions and outcome, and distributive elements. Sound decisions are reasoned, well thought out and based upon accepted knowledge

� Build and maintain trustThe cumulative attention to the previous principles contributes to the establishment

and maintenance of public confidence and trust. It is advisable to build trust and credibility reserves within the public and tap these reserves when they are needed (e.g. build communication channels with the media during non-crisis Times)”

[Public perception and participation in water reuse, Troy Hartley, Department of Resource Economics and Development, University of New Hampshire, April 2005]


6.7 Three Models for Engaging Stakeholders/Public on water Reuse

(a) Community (Locality ) developmentLocality development is the facet of community organizing that concentrates on building an infrastructure of relationships, processes, and systems that makes it possible for the community to solve its own problems and respond to its own needs through planning, action, and advocacy. The development process should be inclusive of all sectors and participatory, and leadership should be encouraged and nurtured from within. The following excerpts are from Community (Locality) Development by Phil Rabinowitz Edited by Bill Berkowitz, The Community Tool Box.

1.�Get�to�know�the�community. The term “get to know” really means three things here:

� Learn about the history, relationships, issues, factions, and other aspects of the community

� Get acquainted with the people in the community. Develop relationships, so that they know who you are

� Understand how people in the community view themselves and others.

Since water reuse schemes are site-specific, this first step in the community development process is an essential step in developing the social capital needed for both the short term and long term.

2. Identify�the�reasons�that�the�community�is�likely�to�be�willing�to�organize. If a community is to come together, it has to have good reasons for doing so, and those reasons have to be determined by the community itself, not by an authority or expert or outside organizer, no matter how well-intentioned.

For the proponent of a water reuse scheme, the traditional approach is to begin with some proposal and hope that the community would embrace and work with the proponent on the details and implementation. The community development model would begin at a higher or more strategic scale - I.e. what does the community want to do about “water management” as opposed to presupposing the appropriateness of water reuse. The community of stakeholders have to own the “statement of the problem” right from the beginning. Now one could begin these discussions by saying the proponent began at water reuse and then backed into the larger framework of “integrated water management”.

3. Determine�who�are�the�opinion�leaders�and�trusted�individuals�and�groups�in�the�community. Opinion leaders are those whose opinions are valued and whose advice is followed by a majority of community members. They may be leaders because of their position or simply because they have demonstrated level-headedness and fairness in the past. Often, they are average citizens who have gained their neighbors’ respect through their exercise of common sense, compassion, and


strong values.

Determining and engaging the opinion leaders early in the process expands the process of building social capital. Given the distrust of authorities in general, one of the indirect benefits of engaging the opinion leaders is that they become the informal underground sources of information that are more likely to be trusted by the community.

4.�Recruit�community�members�to�the�effort. First and foremost, locality development relies on personal contact. Meetings in people’s living rooms, door to door canvassing, outreach, etc. It’s difficult to convince anyone of anything without direct communication.

The community development model is based on face-to-face interactions, not some impersonal newsletter, website or social marketing campaign. These face-to-face interactions can be supported by newsletter, “primers”, websites, etc. But they cannot be replaced by these communication tools. So this hands-on fundamental is going to be more expensive than sending a mailout to 10,000 residents.

5.�Build�a�communication�system.�The first of the system improvements necessary to locality development is a communication network that makes it possible for anyone to reach anyone else. Not only can such a system make working together a great deal easier, but it also helps to squelch rumors and head off trouble before it happens.

One of the common communication and outreach tools is the “store-front drop-in centre” that is highly visible and accessible. These storefront operations are designed to provide a physical focus for the project and an endless source of information for the community. The staff become part of the community.

6.�Encourage�leadership�from�the�community�from�the�beginning. Identify, train, and mentor natural leaders, so that they can take on increasing responsibility and ultimately direct the effort. One of the key pieces of infrastructure that locality development is meant to create is local leadership, making it possible for the effort to be sustained indefinitely by the community.

This step in the process is a major difference from the traditional DAD model of decide, announce and defend. By encouraging leadership and investing in these opinion leaders, they will begin to take ownership for the integrated water management plan/water reuse proposal. In effect, the consultants/proponent become advisors ( Albeit with a vested interest) within the community.

7. Create�a�structure�to�help�the�community�accomplish�its�goals. In order to solidify and coordinate the development effort, it is generally necessary to create an organization of some sort, or even more than one, to provide structure for and coordinate your action. The exception to this rule is a situation in which an organization already exists that has credibility and can take on the work of locality development.

This is usually an advisory committee, working group or task force with a specific mandate and organizational procedures. Usually facilitated or chaired by an independent party that is acceptable to the members and the community at large.

8. Define�the�most�important�issues�that�relate�to�the�community’s�overall�concerns. Just as when your group came together, the issues to be worked on must come from the community itself and reflect community members’ concerns and needs. Some of these issues may be the same


reasons you cited for coming together; others may be stepping stones to a larger goal. In either case, people won’t find them compelling unless they generate them themselves.

At this stage in the process, we would find out if the starting proposition that a water reuse scheme is where the community wants to go or if some other element of an integrated water management plan is desired. This is where power sharing comes to the forefront and the proponent has to be willing to accept and adopt the community’s overall concerns...which may not be a water reuse scheme.

9. Develop�a�strategic�plan. Once you’ve determined where you’re going -- i.e., the issues or problems to be addressed -- the next step is to figure out how to get there. The way to do that is by developing a strategic plan -- a step-by-step blueprint for accomplishing your goals. This means embarking on a participatory process to establish a vision for the community, a mission for your effort, objectives to be reached, a strategy by which to reach them, and actions that will carry out the strategy

So depending on what the conclusion is in Step 8, the proponent continues to support thee community’s decisions and their leadership. It may be that the community wants to implement some other aspect of water management plan before it gets to water reuse.

10. Implement�your�plan. Here’s where all your organizing and hard work pay off. The community takes action to achieve the results it wants, based on the plan that’s been developed.

11.�Continually�monitor�and�evaluate�your�work. Monitoring and regularly evaluating your work gives you the opportunity to change what’s not working and to respond to changes in the community. It also tells you what you’re doing well, and may give you ideas about how to build on your successes.

12. Make�the�locality�development�effort�self-sustaining�and�community-run,�so�that�it’s�established�as�a�permanent�fixture.�The Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council (BYNC) that Saul Alinsky helped establish in 1939 still exists as an organization, even though most of those originally involved are long dead, and the neighborhood has gone from being virtually all white and Eastern European to mostly Hispanic and African-American. You may not be interested in that level of longevity, but locality development is an ongoing process. Individuals and groups move, and others that know nothing of your effort take their places. If you build a strong community and a


strong organization that belongs to and is run by community members, it will continue as long as it’s needed.

The community (locality) development model is a grass-roots planning and implementation model as opposed to a top-down model. It requires a long term commitment by the proponent to power sharing and may not end up going where the proponent originally wanted to go.

(b) Using a “Change Management” ModelChange management concepts tend to be used inside individual organizations to effect some change in direction, ownership or operating paradigms like quality assurance, continuous improvement or learning organizations, etc. Change management is a structured approach to transitioning individuals, teams, and organizations from a current state to a desired future state. Change management (or change control) is the process during which the changes of a system are implemented in a controlled manner by following a pre-defined framework/model with, to some extent, reasonable modifications.

Change management principles and concepts can also be used to influence or effect change in a community. We have taken John Kotter’s 8 steps in Change management and applied it to water reuse.

1.�Make�the�case�for�urgency - inspire people to move, make objectives real and relevant.

In the case of water reuse, one would begin by preparing a case for water reuse in the context of overall water management. A number of survey participants said they did not see the need (6% did not see the need and a further 11% didn’t know). Another change management guru describes this starting point as “people have to smell the smoke.” I.e. the building may burn down unless we do something now.

2.�Build�the�guiding�team - get the right people in place with the right emotional commitment, and the right mix of skills and levels

This is similar, but different, from Steps 3 and 4 in the community (locality) development model - Finding the opinion leaders and recruiting them. However in this case, it is not only a cadre of community leaders but also technical experts who have the human interpersonal skills to build trust and credibility.

3.�Get�the�vision�right�- get the team to establish a simple vision and strategy, focus on emotional and creative aspects necessary to drive success. More than vision, this is all the research, feasibility, health effects studies, etc. needed to protect the “public good/interest”.

In this model, this stage focusses on countersinking water reuse within the larger integrated water management framework and then establishing the complete need and justification for the conceptual scheme.

This stage would deal with the following questions in detail:

- What is the need and justification for reusing purified water? - What sources of water will be reused? - What will the purified water be used for? ie. What applications? - Who are the target users? - What type of system is it? Is there a complete description of the proposed system? - Where else has this been done before and with what degree of success? - What are the costs and benefits of the scheme?


- Who receives the benefits and who pays the costs? - What are the human and environmental health risks? - What safeguards are there to protect human and environmental health? - What monitoring/inspection systems will be instituted?

4.�Communicate�for�buy-in - Involve as many people as possible, communicate the essentials, simply, and to appeal and respond to people’s needs. De-clutter communications - make technology work for you rather than against.

Immediate, short term and longer term....take stakeholders through awareness, comprehension, trial adoption and then they adopt, reject or still undecided..not just the public..this is not typical social marketing where we try to get people to stop unhealthy behaviours...more like may we have your permission to mess with your water

5.�Empower�action - Remove obstacles, enable constructive feedback and lots of support from leaders - reward and recognise progress and achievements.

Need to decide what we want to empower different stakeholders to do/actions....then help them do it if need be...this is the old “disabling effect” where, by virtue of setting up the Task Force, everyone sits on their hands and waits to be told what to do

6.�Create�short-term�wins - Set aims that are easy to achieve - in bite-size chunks. Manageable numbers of initiatives. Finish current stages before starting new ones.

Obvious ones are studies that prove it is safe, feasible, acceptable...keep releasing these reports every 3 months

Is there any “low hanging fruit” that can be picked/implemented? We need a pattern of successes/progress to keep the idea alive and well

7.�Don’t�let�up - Foster and encourage determination and persistence - ongoing change - encourage ongoing progress reporting - highlight achieved and future milestones.

Most infrastructure project only engage the community at the EA stage. The change


management model requires a continuous involvement process because people change both attitudes and expectations.

8.�Make�change�stick - Reinforce the value of successful change via recruitment, promotion, new change leaders. Weave change into culture.

The change management model is a continuous improvement approach that moves on to the next set of changes....anticipatory and future oriented. If the project has been successful, the legacy is increased social capital.

(c) Using Diffusion of Innovations ModelOne way to visualize how people will react to a new idea is to look at Everett Rogers’s Diffusion of Innovations, which has become the standard textbook and reference on diffusion studies. Given that decisions are not authoritative or collective, each member of the social system faces his/her own innovation-decision that follows a 5-step process:

Five categories of adopters The most striking feature of diffusion theory is that, for most members of a social system, the innovation-decision depends heavily on the innovation-decisions of the other members of the system. There is, after about 10-25% of system members adopt an innovation, relatively rapid adoption by the remaining members and then a period in which the holdouts finally adopt.

� Innovators (2.5%) – Brave people, pulling the change. Innovators are very important communication mechanisms

� Early Adopters (13.5%) – Respectable people, opinion leaders, try out new ideas, but in a careful way

� Early Majority (34%) – Thoughtful people, careful but accept change more quickly than average people do

� Late Majority ( 34%) – Skeptical people, will use new ideas or products only when the majority is using it

� Laggards (16%) – Traditional people, love to stick to the old ways, are critical about new ideas and will only accept it if the new idea has become mainstream or even tradition

Characteristics of the proposition The characteristics of the proposition will affect the rate and extent of adoption of innovations:

�� Simplicity (or conversely, complexity). Is water reuse easy to understand? Can it be easily explained to others?

�� Trialability. Can water reuse be tried out on a limited basis? Can the decision to adopt be reversed?

�� Observability. Are the results of water reuse visible to others, so that they can see how it works and observe the consequences?

�� Relative�Advantage. Is water reuse seen as better than that which it replaces? Is the innovation more economical, more socially prestigious, more convenient, more satisfying?

�� Compatibility. Is water reuse consistent with the values, past experiences, and needs of the potential adopters?

If we apply diffusion theory to water reuse, then several themes emerge:

1. If water reuse is treated as an “innovation”, then the adoption of the innovation will be a lengthy process-i.e. probably years

2. We can do positive things to facilitate people’s progression through the “Knowledge” and “Persuasion” stages –i.e. workshops, Primers on water reuse, etc.

3. Persuasion stage is not about social marketing or trying to persuade people about water


reuse. People persuade themselves. What we have to do is create the circumstances and conditions that enable them to become “informed”- i.e. grass-roots engagement

4. Innovators and Early Adopters have to buy into our philosophy of welcoming debate/discussion and not antagonize those who are still sitting on the fence- i.e. make them part of the process in helping us engage the rest of the community

5. On the dimension of characteristics of the proposition, water reuse is a “pig in a poke” – ie. Can’t try it out and can’t observe it…we will have to find ways of helping people check-out the pig so they can figure out if they want to buy it!

6. As for “compatibility” one of the first things we need to do is research into the community’s values, experiences and needs regarding water and water reuse. At this point in time, we are blind.

The first point is that all three of these models would work. The second point is that these three models are constructive and meaningful.

6.8 Conclusions about engagement1. Stakeholder/public acceptability has become the major barrier/challenge to water reuse schemes/

proposals

2. Water reuse projects automatically begin with a stigma or handicap - The Yuck factor

3. Water reuse projects also suffer from negative branding by opponents - Sewer water, Toilet-to-tap

4. Any water reuse scheme is likely to become controversial. Even though non-potable appears to be more acceptable, there are sufficient examples where even non-potable became contentious.

5. Potable water reuse clearly is the most unacceptable scheme to stakeholders/public. Any projects that propose water reuse for drinking, bathing, cooking appear destined to crash on the rocks of public opposition. It is essential from the get-go that we declare potable uses as not even on the table for research purposes.

6. Non-potable water reuse is generally more acceptable to the stakeholders/public but this support is by no means universal.

7. Protection of public health appears to be the source of most controversies involving water reuse. After all, regardless of level of treatment, water reuse is about sewage.

8. The Walkerton experience has increased residents and stakeholders concerned about protecting water quality in Ontario… this negative legacy should be expected to cloud/influence attitudes and opinions about water reuse projects

9. If the major controversies with water reuse focus on public health issues, then there is a need to integrate risk communication theory and practice into any constructive engagement process.

10. Risk communication is not a variation of social marketing. Risk communications is about raising the level of understanding of relevant issues or actions and satisfying those involved that they are adequately informed within the limits of available knowledge.

11. Public consultation/involvement has been based on the “deficit model” -better known as the “public needs to be educated and then they will see that we are right and then they agree with us”. Needless to say, this thinking is flawed when it comes to technical/scientific issues involving public and environmental health.


12. Public confidence in governments, experts and water reuse technologies has been on a downward trend as projects and testimonies about safety have been found wanting. There is great public suspicion of and a lack of trust in our governing institutions and the people around them.

13. This is an especially unfortunate phenomenon since there is a high correlation between public perception of risk and trust in the authorities.

14. This lack of trust is further exacerbated by an almost universal adoption of the DAD model by proponents of water reuse schemes. The “Decide - Announce - Defend” model has been found to be totally ineffective when one is dealing with controversial or potentially controversial infrastructure projects. These “LULUs” ( locally unwanted land uses) require a different model.

15. Proponents using the DAD model invariably resort to social marketing tools and techniques to position their proposal in the best light and proceed to try to persuade the populace or target audience.

16. Given the failures of many water reuse project to achieve public acceptance, a number of authors are calling for new models and paradigms of consensus development and collaboration with stakeholders/public.

17. Need to think of public acceptance as the core issue, not a sidebar issue to be dealt with by more education.

18. Possible guiding principles for community engagement: � Institute a broad based participatory process � Initiate consensus building as early as possible � Manage information for all stakeholder � Achieve agreement that the status quo is unacceptable � Do not exclude contentious issues from consensus building efforts � Maintain individual motivation and demonstrate organizational commitment � Build and maintain trust � Choose the solution that best addresses the problem � Guarantee that stringent public health and safety standards will be met � Fully address all negative aspects of water reuse � Modify traditional procedures to better accommodate consensus building � opportunities � Ensure fair and sound decision-making and decisions

19. We propose 3 models for community engagement, each will avoid the pitfalls and limitations of traditional consultation processes: � Community (Locality ) development Model - The community (locality) development model is a

grass-roots planning and implementation model as opposed to a top-down model. � Using a “Change Management” Model -Change management is a structured approach to

transitioning individuals, teams, and organizations from a current state to a desired future state.Change management principles and concepts can also be used to influence or effect change in a community.

� Using Diffusion of Innovations Model - Knowledge – person becomes aware of an innovation and has some idea of how it functions, - Persuasion – person forms a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the innovation, - Decision – person engages in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject the innovation, - Implementation – person puts an innovation into use, - Confirmation – person evaluates the results of an innovation-decision already made.

20. Recognize that we don’t know enough about public values, interests regarding water and concepts like water reuse. And move forward incrementally, learning more as we go.


Annex


Spring 2010

Exploring the Potential for Reusing Purified Water from wastewater treatment plants

The Start of an on-going dialogue with the CommunityThe Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority is undertaking a process to engage a cross-section of stakeholders in exploring public perceptions about reusing purified water.

This is a confidential survey of stakeholder attitudes in which we want to get a sample of people’s views and opinions about:

• Levels of stakeholder awareness of the concept of reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants.

• Stakeholder attitudes and opinions towards concept of reusing purified water

• Identification of acceptable and unacceptable uses of purified water

• Stakeholders rankings of the reasons for reusing purified water

• Types of information stakeholders need about reusing purified water and who do they trust to provide this information

• Method of engaging stakeholders in an on-going dialogue about reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants

Constructive EngagementOgilvie, Ogilvie & Company has been retained to design and facilitate this engagement process. AECOM has been retained to conduct the technical and financial feasibility studies.

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority is launching an exploratory study into the concept of reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants.

Concept of reusing Purified waterThis is a confidential survey of stakeholder attitudes about the concept of reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants for non-potable applications such as irrigation of non-food crops, watering public parks, cleaning streets, watering lawns, commercial carwashes, toilet/urinal flushing, etc.

Wasting drinking waterCurrently, these non-potable uses of water are often supplied by costly municipal drinking water which is purified/treated to high water quality standards. In effect, we are wasting our best water on these non-potable uses when we could be saving our best water and reducing the costs of municipal drinking water systems.

For non-potable water uses onlySimilar studies in the US, Australia and Europe have found significant acceptance of reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants for these

types of non-potable uses. However, they also found significant objections to reusing purified water for potable uses i.e.

water suitable on the basis of both health and aesthetic considerations for drinking or culinary purposes.

We have excluded drinking water, cooking and washing

Based on these other studies, we have excluded drinking water, cooking food or bathing/washing applications from the

concept of reusing purified water. We are only considering non-potable uses.

We want to find out what you think about this conceptYour answers will help us evaluate the public acceptability of the concept and if there is support for the concept,how one could go about developing a program for reusing purified water. On the other hand, if there is not enough support for the concept, we will have a better understanding of the stakeholder’s views and opinions. Either way, we need your thoughts and opinions on the matter.

For more information about this survey, please contact the following individuals:Robb Ogilvie Mike WaltersOgilvie, Ogilvie & Company Lake Simcoe Region Conservation AuthorityTel: 705.437.4271 Tel: 905.895.1281 ext 234Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]


2 Ogilvie, Ogilvie & COmpany

Confidential Survey Questionnaire

Section 1: General Awareness and Knowledge

1.1 Who supplies the drinking water for your home?

Municipal My own well supply Other

1.2 Who supplies the wastewater disposal system for your home?

Municipal My own septic system Other

1.3 Do you have a greywater reuse system in your home?

Yes No

1.4 How much do you pay for water a year?

Nothing $300 to $500 More than $500 Don’t Know

1.5 How familiar are you with the concept of reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants? Please mark your degree of familiarity.

Not Familiar 1 2 3 4 5 Very Familiar

1.6 Do you think there is a need to reuse purified water from wastewater treatment plants in the Lake Simcoe watershed?


1.7 Do you think reusing purified water from wastewater treatment plants for non-potable uses is a good idea?


1.8 Please indicate with an 3 mark how familiar you are with the following terms:

Have not heard of the term at all

Have heard of the term but don’t know its meaning


Potable water

Wastewater

Greywater

Reclaimed

Recycled water

Blackwater

Stormwater

Aquifer recharge

Non-potable water


Under the auspices of lake Simcoe Region Conservation authority 3

Section 2: Acceptable and Non-Acceptable Uses

2.1 Please indicate which uses of purified water from sewage treatment plants would be acceptable or not acceptable to you? Please mark your selections.

AgriculturAl irrigAtion

Food Crops Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

Non-Food Crops Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

Sod Farming Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

Commercial Nurseries Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

lAndscApe irrigAtion

Industrial Parks Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

Golf Courses Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

Public Parks/Athletic Fields Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

School Grounds Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

industriAl And commerciAl

Cooling Power Plants Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

Mixing Concrete Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

Gravel Washing Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

Equipment Cleaning Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

Dust Control Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

Air Conditioning Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

Laundries Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

Car Washes Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

municipAl

Fire Fighting Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

Street Cleaning Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

Flushing Wastewater Pipes Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

recreAtionAl

Snow/Ice Making Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

Swimming Pools Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

Maintaining Pond Levels, Fountains, etc Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

environmentAl restorAtion

Stream Flow Augmentation Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

Wetland Enhancement Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

Fisheries Management Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

HouseHold

Toilet Flushing Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

Lawn/Garden Watering Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

Washing Cars, Fences, etc Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know

Swimming Pools Not Acceptable Maybe Yes Acceptable Don’t Know



2.2 Please indicate with an 3 mark how much you agree with the following statements. If you don’t know or have no opinion, please leave it blank.

i would support reusing purified water… Agree tend to Agree tend to disagree

disagree

because it is more environmentally sustainable than continuing to discharge treated wastewater into streams and lakes

because it will reduce the need to expand wastewater treatment plants to meet growing population needs in the watershed

because it will reduce the effluent going into the lakes and waterways

because it will reduce the amount of phosphorus and other nutrients going into Lake Simcoe

because it allows for the beneficial recycling of water and nutrients

Other reasons? (Please describe.)

2.3 Whose opinions about a proposal to reuse purified water would you trust the most? Please indicate who you trust the most with a 3 mark.

very trustworthy

somewhat trustworthy

not trustworthy

don’t Know

Conservation Authorities

Regional Governments

Local Municipalities

Provincial Government/Agencies

Federal Government/Agencies

Public Health Units

Special Interest Groups

Consultants

University Professors/Experts

Media (Newspapers, TV)

Internet



2.4 How important are each of the following questions to you? Please indicate your ranking with a 3 mark.

most important

somewhat important

less important

not important

What is the need and justification for reusing purified water?

What sources of water will be reused?

What will the purified water be used for? ie. What applications?

Who are the target users?

What type of system is it? Is there a complete description of the proposed system?


What are the costs and benefits of the scheme?

Who receives the benefits and who pays the costs?

What are the human and environmental health risks?


What monitoring/inspection systems will be instituted?

What will it cost the other taxpayers?

Other questions you would like to have answered? (Please describe.)

2.5 So far we have called the concept “reusing purified water”. Which of the following terms/labels creates the best image? Please indicate your ranking with a 3 mark.

Best so so Worst

Reclaiming water for beneficial uses

Reclaiming water

Recycling water

Reusing wastewater

Reusing treated wastewater

Reusing wasted water

Reusing purified water

Other (Please specify)



2.6 Which of the following water conservation measures do you practice? Please indicate what you practice with a 3 mark.

saving water in the kitchen and laundry Always sometimes never

Replacing normal kitchen faucets with faucet aerators. This can reduce the flow by up to 50%.

Use our automatic dishwasher only for full loads.


As appliances or fixtures wear out, we replace them with water-saving models.

Using a high efficiency water softener.

saving water in the bathroom

Replacing our existing toilet with a new low flush model. New toilets use only 6 litres per flush while older toilets can use over 20 litres per flush.

Installing toilet water saving devices. Early closure toilet flappers or toilet dams. These devices can save 4 to 8 litres of water every time you flush.

Installing water saving showerheads. They can save up to 20 litres of water per minute.

Installing a bathroom faucet aerators to reduce the flow out by up to 50%.

saving water outside

We water our lawn at night and only when it needs it.

We reduced our water needs by planting drought-resistant trees and plants.

We use a broom – not a hose – to clean driveways and sidewalks.

We don’t run the hose while washing our car. We clean the car with a pail of soapy water and just use the hose to rinse it off.

We use a cover when the pool is not in use to reduce evaporation.

Other measures you practice? Please specify.

Car WaSh SNOW MakiNg FirE FighTiNg



Section 3: If the study concludes that reusing purified water is feasible and acceptable, then answers to the following questions would be helpful

3.1 Studies in other jurisdictions have found that public acceptance of reusing purified water is high when the following conditions exist. From your perspective, do you agree or disagree with these conditions? Please mark your response with a 3 mark.

do you agree or disagree with these conditions? Agree tend to Agree

tend to disagree

disagree


Protection of public health is clear.

Protection of the environment is a clear benefit of reusing purified water.

Promotion of water conservation is a clear benefit of reusing purified water.

Cost of treatment and distribution technologies and systems is reasonable.



Perception of the quality of reusing purified water is high.

Confidence in local management of public utilities and technologies is high.

irrigaTiON iS ONE POTENTial WaTEr rEuSE



Include me on the mailing list for future information, newsletters

Invite me to any focus groups/workshops or public information forums

Include me in any future surveys

Include me in any future Task Forces or Working Groups on this topic

Advise me of any Website on reusing purified water

Send me copies of any newspaper articles and useful reports on reusing purified water

A “centralized system” for reusing purified water from a wastewater treatment plant would probably consist of: 1. Pumping Station – Pumping stations may be required for the transport of untreated wastewater to the reclamation plant

and for delivering purified water to the users via a transmission and distribution system.2. Treatment water storage – Storage is needed to compensate for the differences in water production rate and the rate and

time of use. Storage facilities may be underground or surface structures, lakes or ponds.3. Transmission and distribution pipelines (often called purple pipes) – Transmission lines are used to deliver water from the

point of production to the users4. Cross-connection controls to ensure there is no pathway for mixing with potable water supply lines York Region already

treats the effluent from the sewage treatment plants to what is called a tertiary level to increase the quality of the wastewater effluent. These processes can be physical (filtration), biological, or chemical, based on the substances to be removed. This step further reduces the level of organic chemicals, nutrients, pathogens, and suspended solids in the treated effluent.

3.2 Would you be prepared to pay a surcharge on your water bill for the cost of a centralized system for reusing purified water if it was shown to provide an environmental benefit and/or was the lowest cost alternative”?

Yes Maybe No

3.3 If yes or maybe, how much of an annual surcharge would you be willing to pay?

$100 a year $200 a year $300 a year $400 a year $500 a year

3.4 Do you have any concerns if the use of the purified water was limited to commercial and industrial users and paid for by them?

Yes Maybe No 3.5 What do you think the biggest barriers are or would be to gaining public acceptance for reusing

purified water?

3.5 Would you like to continue to be involved in this dialogue?

Yes Maybe No

3.6 If yes, how would you like to be involved? Please indicate how you…



3.7 What are the best ways to communicate with you concerning future proposals about reusing purified water? Please indicate your choices with a 3 mark.

Best so so Worst

Articles in the Local Newspaper Mailed Informational PamphletsNewslettersPrimers/Citizen’s GuidesVideosFocus GroupsWorkshopsPublic Information MeetingsTelevision Programs on Public ChannelsInformation on WebsitesWebcastingOther (please specify)

3.8 Are there any other comments you would like to make?

Thank you for your help.

If you have any further comments,

please call or e-mail Robb Ogilvie:

Toll free: 1-866-386-6225

E-mail: [email protected]

iCE MakiNg gOlF COurSE hazard lakES



What is your gender?

Female Male

What is your current age?

18-19 years 55-59 years




45-54 years 85+ years

What level of education have you completed?

Grade School

Junior High School

High School

Community College

University

Other

If there are children living in your household, what are their ages? (Check all that apply.)

No children

0-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

16+ years

Biographical Data

How long have you lived in the Lake Simcoe Watershed?

(in years)

Which best describes your occupation?

Business Owner/Self-employed

Clerical/Administrative

Entrepreneur

Education Professional

Engineering

Farming

Healthcare

Homemaker

Hospitality/Food Service

Laborer

Legal

Management

Government

Retired

Other

Name:


Appendix B- Some Cases [Excerpts from Literature review of the factors influencing public perceptions of water reuse, Murni Po, Juliane D. Kaercger and Blair E. Nancarrow, CSIRO Land and Water Technical Report 54/03, December 2003]

Some case studies have shown high levels of public acceptanceIrvine Ranch Water District - California

Recycled water for non-potable uses -Launched in 1967, recycled water has been used for the irrigation of local crops, golf courses, parks, school grounds, greenbelts, street medians, freeway landscaping, other industrial uses. Through a dual distribution system, individual homeowners have been supplied with recycled water for non-potable uses. Currently, recycled water supplies about 15% of the annual water needs.

Public Perceptions - Water reuse was promoted to the public as a means of protecting the environment, saving money and energy, and providing a drought resistant supply. Coupled with extensive water conservation programs, the public was inundated for decades with public tours, in-school education, outreach and community education programs.

Monterey County Water Recycling Project- California

Recycled water for non-potable uses -The concept was introduced to minimise seawater intrusion into the local groundwater aquifers by using recycled water for irrigation rather than groundwater. Currently, over 53 billion litres of recycled water is produced for irrigation of high quality food crops, such as artichokes, lettuce, cauliflower, celery, and strawberries.

An 11-year study — reviewed and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Public Health, the Centers for Disease Control and the U.S. Department of Agriculture — showed that water from the treatment facility poses no risk to farmworkers. The study also found no salmonella, E. coli or other viable pathogens of public health concern in the recycled water. As an added bonus, the recycled water contains more nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous — all beneficial nutrients commonly found in fertilizers — than well water.

Public Perceptions - It took years of careful planning with great emphasis on public involvement. It took almost 20 years of planning before the project was fully operational in 1998. Local growers suggested a field study was needed to look at the safety and marketability of produce irrigated with recycled water. Buyers, shippers and other intermediaries were concerned about regulatory agencies and that their competitors and the media might target them with negative publicity. The Recycled Water Task Force, 2003 reported strong support at community levels because of the extensive educational programs introduced. These programs involved the traditional social marketing approaches of school presentations, tours to treatment plants, project exhibitions at local community events, and providing pamphlets to consumers with their water bills.

Reasons for the success of this project include cost sharing among all beneficiaries, devolution of sufficient authority to regional and local authorities to impose alternative solutions, federal and state financial support, and development of innovative project management institutions. Interestingly, the target audience seems to have been growers, buyers and shippers, not the general public.


Rouse Hill residential dual reticulation wastewater reuse – Sydney, Australia

Recycled water for non-potable uses -The reuse projects in Australia are generally designed for non-potable purposes, such as landscape irrigation, agricultural or horticultural irrigation, industrial water recycling, residential garden irrigation and toilet flushing. The Rouse Hill scheme started in 2001, and more than 18,000 homes are now using up to 1.7 billion litres of recycled water each year for flushing toilets, watering gardens, washing cars and other outdoor uses. Recycled water is treated to a high standard so it is safe to use. On average the Rouse Hill scheme has reduced demand for drinking water by about 40%.

Public Perceptions - The proponent conducted studies to understand the Rouse Hill community views on recycled water before and after commissioning the scheme. The studies found:

� -Most residents surveyed were aware of the scheme when they took up residence in the area. � - There was some uncertainty as to whether human waste was being recycled or not, and what was

actually involved in the treatment of the recycled water. � - Residents were generally aware of the appropriate uses of recycled water (e.g. garden irrigation) � - They regarded the dual water scheme with a sense of pride. � -Generally, they had few concerns, although many felt they had no choice when taking up residence

in the area

Virginia Pipeline Scheme, Bolivar, South Australia

Recycled water for non-potable uses -Virginia is home to highly productive market gardens and Australia’s largest concentration of greenhouse production. The scheme is based on a 120-kilometre pipeline network distributing treated effluent to Virginia market gardens. It is a co-operative undertaking of the Virginia Irrigation Association (representing market gardeners and other irrigators), SA Water and Water Reticulation Systems Virginia (a private sector subsidiary of Tyco International). SA Water constructed a $30 million filtration/disinfection plant (DAFF) to treat lagoon effluent from the Bolivar wastewater treatment plant, producing Class A reclaimed water which can be used for irrigation of Virginia’s crops. The scheme provides an alternative source of water to the local underground water supplies which were overused and progressively deteriorating in quality. It also supports one of South Australia’s most valuable produce markets. The system was commissioned in 1999 and has a capacity of 110 mega litres/day. It commences at the Bolivar plant and fans out to provide water to irrigators as far north as the Gawler River. The simple facts are, reclaimed water was born out of a need. First of all, the underground basin was deteriorating. Secondly, the Class D reclaimed water was causing some problems.

Public Perceptions – No evidence of any broad public consultation, target audience was the growers and even that appears to wanting.

“It was a real inept public relations process on the behalf of the people promoting the scheme it need not have been as it was, but it was very, very badly handled. It was badly handled because there was a real lack of perception by those pushing the scheme as to where the growers were at. … I think that the people in the scheme assumed it was clearly a benefit when you’ve got an aquifer that’s running out of water and growers wanting to use more water, that if you provide extra water it’s going to be a plus. … The truth is that a huge proportion of the community didn’t really certainly believe, and in many cases I think even know, that the aquifer is under incredible amounts of stress that it is. So, when this water as they saw it was being pushed upon them, all they wanted to do was fight the thing.”

Growers became aware of the scheme from hearing others talking about it, attending meetings relating to


the then Class D water and other meetings, the media, and through the VIA. Virginia Horticulture Centre developed a risk communication strategy to address ideas of “bad water”…put together fact sheets and ran a series of workshops for growers and for people in the market place..The Department of Health was actively involved in communicating the safety of produce grown with reclaimed water to retailers and wholesalers and a crisis management team met as a matter of urgency to address rumours or negative feedback

Some case studies illustrate the potentially controversial side of water reuseSan Diego water repurification project

Recycled water for potable uses- Introducing recycled water as a supplement to the city of San Diego’s drinking water supply was conceived during the 1991-92 drought (D’Angelo Report, 1998). The project proposed mixing the recycled water with imported freshwater in reservoirs. After a year’s detention, this water would go through the conventional water treatment process before being piped to domestic homes. The project was introduced to the community as means of protecting the city from possible future droughts.

Public Perceptions - Despite the strong support from a wide variety of independent advisory panel, a 17 member Repurification Water Review Committee, surveya, focus groups, and community organizations, the project became entangled in political campaigns which eventually caused the whole project to be halted. The campaigns claimed that the city intended to take wastewater from affluent communities to distribute as drinking water to those less affluent, and health dangers from the project were specifically highlighted (Recycled Water Task Force, 2003)....posters covered with the slogan “Toilet to Tap”

San Gabriel Valley groundwater recharge project

Recycled water to replenish the local aquifer - It was designed to use tertiary-treated recycled water to replenish the local aquifer. The project met significant opposition before its conception with newspaper advertisements and mailers questioning the safety and feasibility of the project.

Public Perceptions - Just weeks before the project’s hearing of the environmental review process, a citizens group, Citizens for Clean Water took out several full page newspaper advertisements declaring the project as “Toilet to Tap”; that the project was unnecessary and the potential health risks associated with drinking reclaimed water – however small – were unacceptable and bore too many risks for the environment and the people (Stenekes et al., 2001; Logan, 1996).

Treat sewage effluent which would then be returned to the Cooby Dam via a chain of ponds, wetlands, bores and aquifers.– Toowoomba, Australia

Recycled water for drinking-Toowoomba is an elevated, inland town in Queensland that does not have a local water source. Supplies are pumped a great distance from dams to the east. Continuing drought has depleted the levels in these dams, reducing available yields and prompting consideration of alternative sources. The scheme was to incorporate state-of-the-art technology, using MF/ultrafiltration, RO membranes and UV advanced oxidation to treat high quality sewage effluent which would then be returned to the Cooby Dam via a chain of ponds, wetlands, bores and aquifers.

Public Perceptions – Toowoomba is a textbook example of how proposed schemes become politicised.


Initially local politicians were supportive with positive press briefings. From July 2005 the project was fully supported by all councillors, local state and federal MPs. However, within two months, opposition from local irrigators and property developers fearing negative publicity for the area as well as the hastily formed ‘Citizens Against Drinking Sewage’ (CADS) group, changed the political mood and the funding approval stalled.

As a way forward the NWC proposed a referendum, setting a new precedent in project approval processes. Toowoomba City Council opposed this approach as an abrogation of political leadership and usurping the democratically elected council’s mandate for making decisions relating to its

community. It also felt that the alternatives that were being proposed by political opponents (eg coal seam gas water) were unfeasible and not correctly presented.

The run-up to the July 2006 referendum was fraught with a vocal negative campaign and sensationalism in the press … ‘Pull plug on poo water….’ “Don’t poo-poo it until you try it…just pretend it’s not water from the toilet” The proponents had difficulty in getting the scientific arguments across. The results of the referendum were 62% against and 38% for.

stakeholder/public attitudes towards reuse of treated ... documents/reports... · towards reuse of...

Documents