Pollution Prevention drinking water (P2dw) Team Overview
Pollution Prevention drinking water (P2dw) (Team) Business Plan
Version 2
8/15/08
Prepared by
Scott Warren
Senior Engineering Geologist
Cleanup Program-Cypress
Pollution Prevention drinking water (P2dw) (Team) Business Plan
Concept
DTSC is evaluating the establishment of a groundwater protection team to: establish and develop a collaborative relationship with Water Districts and the water Board to focus on minimizing the impact of contamination to drinking water wells. The team will focus on prevention in accordance with the Directors emphasis on Pollution Prevention (P2) and will be branded as the Pollution Prevention drinking water Team (P2dw). This Business Plan outlines the perceived problem, and conceived approach DTSC will consider while establishing and staffing the P2dw team.
The P2dw Team will need to demonstrate where and how they add value to the proposed stakeholders which will primarily be Water Districts. We must be able to demonstrate that we add value at the technical, management and Board level. The approach will depend on funding levels available for the P2dw start-up team. At a minimum, a prototype team of three geologists (or two geologists and an engineer) in Southern California should be established to penetrate the Drinking Water market. DTSC is primarily thought of as a soil or waste agency, we must develop our DTSC Drinking Water Brand. The number will be expanded in 2009 but should not include more than five full time members. Temporary specialized resources such as attorneys, toxicologists, and out reach specialists will be needed but only on a part time basis. These supplemental members can be brought in on an as-needed basis.
The primary targets will be the Orange County Water District, the Water Replenishment District and the Los Angeles Department of water and Power. These three districts supply water to around 18 million southern Californians and offer the best exposure for the minimal investment. The districts are co-located with the greatest concentration of Brownfields Sites in southern California and a large preponderance of political representatives. Once a beachhead is established, the target list can grow and permanent team members will grow as needed. The P2dw Team should remain small and very focused, drawing on available resources as needed. The intent is to develop a specialized team to prioritize issues, focus resources and demonstrate the viability of the approach.
This overview presents the conceptual analysis for the P2dw Team. The analysis focuses on the technical approach to establishing a drinking water protection team. The analysis provides a preliminary competition evaluation, a very general SWOT analysis, a preliminary evaluation of regulatory authority and very brief estimate of possible funding mechanisms. This analysis provides a conceptual starting point to explore the concept of establishing a drinking water protection team.
It must be pointed out that this team is different from any other DTSC team. This Team will establish a beachhead for DTSC in a new area that will be contested by the Water Board. The strategy will be to quietly establish a beachhead and develop a business through customer service. The information contained in this analysis should be considered proprietary and should not be shared outside of DTSC.
Table of Contents
1 Concept 2
2 Problem Statement 5
3 Setting 6
4 Conceptual Approach 6
5 P2dw SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) Analysis 21
5.1 SWOT Analysis 21
6 Mission, Vision, Strategy 22
6.1 Proposed Mission 23
6.2 Proposed Vision 23
6.3 Strategic Goals and Objectives 23
Proposed Outputs 24
Proposed Outcomes 24
Performance Measures 25
7 Funding Sources 25
Resources 25
8 Authority 28
8.1 Chapter 6.5 28
8.2 Chapter 6.8 28
8.3 Water Code 28
Porter Cologne 28
CUPA Regulations 28
9 DTSC Capabilities 29
10 Strategy 29
10.1 DTSC/Water Purveyor Collaboration/Coordination 30
10.2 DTSC Orange County Water District/Water Board (Santa Ana Region)/Orange County Health Care Agency 30
10.3 LA Dept. of Water and Power 30
10.4 Water Well Testing 31
Private Wells 31
GAMA 31
Public Wells 31
Contaminant Mapping 31
11 Enforcement Actions 31
11.1 Court Cases 31
a. Funding Opportunities 51
Tables Page
Table 1a P2dw Pollution Prevention drinking water
Preliminary Water District Targets (SCal) 8
Table 1b P2dw Pollution Prevention drinking water
Secondary Water District Targets (SCal) 9
Table 1c P2dw Pollution Prevention drinking water
Tertiary Water District Targets (NCal) 9
Table 2a Water Active Legislators - Senate 13
Table 2b Water Active Legislators – Assembly 16
Table 3 Vertical Targets for P2dw interaction 20
Table 4 P2dw SWOT Analysis
P2dw External Evaluation 21
P2dw Internal Evaluation 22
Table 5a Resources Estimate Worksheet 26
Table 5b Resources Estimate Totals 27
Figures
Figure 1 California Population Map 10
Figure 2 Distribution of Brownfield Site; California 11
Figure 3 Distribution of Brownfield Sites; Los Angles Area 12
Figure 4 Senate Districts, Los Angeles Area 13
Figure 4b Senate Districts Los Angeles and Orange County 13
Figure 4c Assembly Districts, Los Angeles Area 16
Figure 4d Assembly Districts, Los Angeles and Orange County 16
Figure 5 Groundwater Team Resource Estimate 28
Appendices
Appendix A Legislative Districts Work Sheets 33
Appendix B Contact Information for DDWEM Programs 50
Appendix C Water Resources Strategic Plan (summary 3/1/08) 52
Appendix D Association of California Water Agencies 60
Appendix E New Team Idea Roadmap and Questionnaire 65
Appendix F Work Groups, Single Leader Units and Teams 68
Appendix G P2dw Team Charter 75
Appendix H P2dw Site Ranking Approach 80
Appendix I Comparison of Authorities 81
Problem Statement
Drinking water is a very valuable commodity in California. The importance of our drinking water is taking center stage because California’s population is approximately 38 million people and it is expected to reach 50 million by 2020. In 2007, approximately 50% of southern California’s drinking water was transported from northern California to southern California via aqueducts. In 2008, the water available for southern California was cut by 20% to protect the Smelt population.
Once received in southern California, water is placed into infiltration basins where it recharges drinking water aquifers which are used to distribute the water to the end users. The cost for bringing this water to southern California is expected to quadruple by 2020.
Contamination from Sites regulated by DTSC and the Water Boards impacts the drinking water aquifers and degrades the quality in many parts of California. The traditional approach of tracing contamination from known contaminated sites has not effectively stopped the impact to our drinking water aquifers and we have to find a more effective and efficient approach to drinking water protection. Thus far, the approach has been to evaluate known Sites and track contamination leaving the Sites Due to the large number of unidentified sources and the urgent need to protect drinking water, we can no longer rely on the source to user approach alone. We must replace our unidirectional/unilateral approach with a multifaceted multi-agency collaborative approach. The new approach must consolidate and use all available information to locate, identify and track contaminants in each part of the supply chain. DTSC is evaluating the establishment of a groundwater protection team to focus on identifying; potential and known impacted drinking water supply wells, sources and avenues for migration and the most environmentally friendly approach to preserve water quality in drinking water wells.
DTSC is also looking at consolidating long tern groundwater remediation system Operation and management (O&M) under one umbrella. Specifically, the USEPA is managing large scale groundwater projects in California. The USEPA will install remediation systems and demonstrate their effectiveness. After which, the State of California will be required to operate and manage the systems into perpetuity. It is clearly in the States interest to ensure the systems are properly designed for efficient and effective long term operation. An example is the San Gabriel Superfund Site. The system is operating now and O_& costs run approximately 2 million dollars per year (Paid for by the USEPA). In five years, the system will be turned over to California to operate until the plume is remediated. California has warned the USEPA for years the current approach is flawed. The State of California should not assume the system until it is properly designed and is designed for efficient long term operation with minimal carbon impact on the environment.
The team will focus on prevention in accordance with the Directors emphasis on Pollution Prevention (P2) and will be branded as the Pollution Prevention drinking water team (P2dw).The intent is to work in collaboration with Water Districts and expand/establish DTSC services and name recognition into groundwater preservation. The P2dw Team will focus on collaborating with regulatory agencies, Responsible Parties, Water Districts and water purveyors to find efficient, cost effective environmentally friendly approaches to preserve our water supplies.
Setting
A large percentage of the contaminated sites in California are located in the Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego County areas. After decades of infiltration, contamination is finding its way into our drinking water aquifers and into the wells used to distribute groundwater to the inhabitants of the basins.
Southern California area is highly dependant on imported water which is used to recharge the groundwater distribution system. The groundwater basins are used as a distribution system to get the water to the end users. Therefore, contamination that reaches the drinking water supplies affects the naturally occurring groundwater and the supplemental (purchased water) stored in the groundwater basins. Impacts from unchecked point and non-point sources is entering and impacting drinking water supplies.
The southern California area typically imports about 80 percent of its drinking water from outside sources. Due to recent court cases, approximately 30 percent of the imported water has been diverted to protect select aquatic species, resulting in a net loss of 30 percent of the water sent from northern California to southern California. Additionally, the Colorado River supplies a large percentage of drinking water used in southern California. Potential international cases involving water supply to Mexico may further reduce the Colorado River water available to southern California.
Imported water purchased from the Colorado River typically exceeds the Drinking Water Standards for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), therefore water purveyors either filter the water to reduce the TDS or blend the water to bring it to within acceptable levels. In addition to TDS, the number one issue affecting drinking water quality in southern California is nitrate content. Nitrates are derived from rain and irrigation runoff that makes its way to aquifers. Nitrates are also a major pollutant in urea, found among other places, in stockyards, dairies and septic systems. Nitrates are not currently regulated by DTSC.
Inland districts are reportedly resorting to the use of desalinization processes to treat water high in TDS and nitrates and coastal purveyors are resorting to the desalinization of sea water to increase the amount of water they can provide to their constituencies for non-potable use. Both processes produce brines that may exceed disposal limits and produce a waste. Coastal purveyors discharge the brine to the ocean via pipes on the sea floor but the inland purveyors are producing a waste cake material that may require special handling and disposal. As the water shortage continues, the production of brine cake will increase. This material should be evaluated to find new ways to use the cake in lieu of disposal.
As the States water crisis continues, water replenishment districts will look for improve ways to capture rain runoff and use it to recharge aquifers. There will be opportunities to work with the Water Districts to look for creative ways to cleanse the water of impurities (especially hydrocarbons picked-up off the streets) via natural biological processes. This allows DTSC to further widen it’s pollution prevention capabilities related to drinking water.
Conceptual Approach
Develop a P2dw team that will cross regional, administrative and agency boundaries and develop a comprehensive, integrated, interagency drinking water protection and pollution prevention approach. It is critical that this team be branded as a part of DTSC’s overall pollution prevention strategy. This is a mechanism we can and should use to move public and industry perception from water = Water Board to DTSC = pollution prevention, drinking water protection and green technology (P2dw). Part of the Green technology branding can come from looking at the carbon footprint of remediation activities. The P2dw should help focus attention on long term O&M costs/ vs a risk management comparison of the remediation carbon footprint of the project to promote responsible, balanced clean-ups.
The team will focus on collaboration with stakeholders in the protection and preservation of California’s drinking water and the minimization of waste. Waste minimization will take the form of controlling and overseeing the remediation of contamination that may impact groundwater not currently used as drinking water. Waste minimization will also include working collaboratively to reuse/recycle brine and filter cake material rather than designate it a waste.
All waters of the State will be considered potential drinking water and thus protected. Due to the recent cut-back of water available for import, Water Districts are looking for any usable water. We should anticipate modification of “de-designation” status in Basin Plans and Ocean Plans, especially where the changes were political in nature (under Military bases). In areas where potable water of sufficient natural quality and quantity is not too adversely impacted by sea water intrusion, water Districts will evaluate the feasibility of mining that water for use in injection barriers or other industrial uses. In California, drinking water is regulated by the California Department of Public Health's Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management. Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management (DDWEM) (California Department of Public Health) Drinking Water Program. DTSC is working with the DDWEM to understand the workings of drinking water protection in California and establish a niche for DTSC. We have established contact with the CDPH and working on opening a niche in southern California. A brief list of DDWEM activities is provided in Appendix A. Historically, water in some aquifers beneath military bases has been designated as other than drinking water quality. One of the goals for DTSC will be to ensure Groundwater resources under US Military bases that could impact drinking water resources are not be exempt from the P2dw authority. This may be a political issues but the increased demand for potable water should drive it beneficial use rather than political de-designation.
The time and atmosphere is right for the team to rank and track potential contamination from drinking water resources to contaminated sites and from contaminated sites to drinking water resources and will have the authority to audit records and require action from Responsible Party and oversight agencies. A preliminary ranking system used by the Water replenishment District of Southern California is included in Appendix H. The P2dw Team should be designed and designated to supersede all other authority and cross functional boundaries to reduce overlap and establish cooperative relationships designed to maximize the protection of drinking water resources at the minimum possible cost and to reduce expenditure of resources on lawsuits between agencies and water districts. We need to establish where we can add value to the stakeholders. The primary mechanism to add value is to track contamination to polluters and force them to pay for the clean-ups and to minimize California’s exposure paying for poorly designed remediation systems set-up by others (the USEPA) without consideration for long term O&M costs.
The prototype team should be set-up in Southern California (SCal) where contacts have been established and the biggest political bang-for-the-buck is in SCal. The team should be piloted in SCal [see Preliminary Water District Targets (Table 1)] then move to the San Francisco (SF) to open agreements with the SF Preliminary Water District Targets.
Table 1a P2dw Pollution Prevention drinking water
Preliminary Water District Targets (SCal)
|Water District |Location |Pop. |Area (Sq. Miles) |Facts |Senate Dist. |
| | |(Million) | | | |
|Orange County Water |Orange County |2.3 |350 |Demand 700,000 acre | |
|Dist. (OCWD) | | |23 Cities/ Water Agencies |ft/yr.* | |
| | | | |Xxx Wells | |
| | | | |import~50% | |
|Los Angeles Dept. of |N. Los Angeles | | | | |
|Water & Power (LADWP) | | | | | |
• 1 Acre ft. costs ~ $800 in today’s dollars
The P2dw will sequence entrance into the drinking water P2 market by establishing a beach-head in the Southern California market via three large well established Water Districts that together provide drinking water for approximately 18 million people which cross two Water Board Regions. After establishing a beach-head, we will broaden our efforts to establish a second beach-head in Northern California (NCal) and widen our grip on Southern California. The intent is to demonstrate that DTSC is the agency of choice for protecting drinking water. Table 1b shows a preliminary list of secondary targets for the SCal market.
Table 1b P2dw Pollution Prevention drinking water
Secondary Water District Targets (SCal)
|Water District |Location |Pop. |Area (Sq. Miles) |Facts |Senate Dist. |
| | |(Million) | | | |
|Inland Empire Water |Riverside |0.3 | | | |
|Dist. | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Table 1c P2dw Pollution Prevention drinking water
Tertiary Water District Targets (SCal)
|Water District |Location |Pop. |Area (Sq. Miles) |Facts |Senate Dist. |
| | |(Million) | | | |
|Oakland Water | | | | | |
|San Francisco Water | | | | | |
(Depending on resources and the selected strategy, we may want to switch the Secondary and Tertiary Water District Targets above to improve our geographic distribution before the election. We already have excellent contacts in the Bay area in Ted Peng and Brian Lewis).
Figure 1 (below) shows the relative population centers for California. The most populated areas coincide with the areas of greatest industrialization and therefore most contaminated properties and Brownfields in the State. Figure 2 shows the areas with the greatest concentration of Brownfields in California to emphasize the co-location of Brownfield Sites and population centers. The intent is for the P2dw Team to focus initial efforts on the population centers which coincide with the most industrialized areas. Once P2dw has penetrated the market and established a foothold, then we can perform a cost/benefit analysis to select other markets to enter.
Figure 1 California Population Map
[pic]
Figure 2 Distribution of Brownfield Site; California
[pic]
(Figure 2 and Figure 3 were recovered from a presentation made by Dorothy Rice in 2005)
Figure 3 show the general concentration and distribution of Brownfield Sites in the Los Angeles area. Figure 3 shows a large preponderance of Sites in Los Angeles County (LAC) and northern Orange County (OC), both densely populated areas. The LAC and OC areas are politically powerful locations which provide DTSC the best chance to enter the market in an area where the benefits are most likely to be cost effective and can lead to favorable political exposure and therefore funding.
Figure 3 Distribution of Brownfield Sites; Los Angles Area
[pic]
(Figure 2 and Figure 3 were recovered from a presentation made by Dorothy Rice in 2005)
Figures 4a and 4b show the California State Senate districts located in the Los Angeles and Orange County areas that would be impacted by activity (or inactivity) in the LAC/OC area. Table 2 provides a listing of the State Senate Districts, Senators, and current water based activities under consideration by Senators representing LAC and OC. Likewise, Figures 4c and 4d show the California Assembly districts located in the Los Angeles and Orange County areas that would be impacted by activity (or inactivity) in the LAC/OC area. Table 2b provides a listing of the State Assembly Districts, Assembly Representatives, and current water based activities under consideration by Assembly Members in the LAC and OC.
Figure 4a Senate Districts, Los Angeles Area
[pic]
Figure 4b Senate Districts Los Angeles and Orange County
[pic]
Table 2 Water Active Legislators Senators
|Senate |Senator |Cities |County |Committee |Pertinent 2008 Legislation |
|District | | | | | |
|23 |Senator Shelia |(LA) Agura Hills, Beverly |LA - Ventura |1) Chair: Health Effects of |SB 8 - CALFED & Environmental Justice |
| |Kuehl (D) |Hills, Calabasas, Hidden | |Radioactive and Chemical |SB 68 - Protecting Our Mineral Resources |
|Term | |Hills, LA, Malibu, Santa | |Contamination |SB 127 - Property Transfer Disclosures |
|limit |*Assem=6 |Monica, West Hollywood, | |2) Perchlorate Contamination |SB 862 - Water Resources Planning |
|2008 |Senate=8 |Westlake Village, (Ventura) | |3) Chair: Environmental Quality |SB 990 - Santa Susana Fld Lab. Clean Up |
| |Remain=0 |Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Channel| |Health | |
| | |Islands. | |4) Natural Resources & Water | |
| | | | |Subcommittee on delta resources | |
Cites in Bold have known impacted OCWD wells
City with Bold underline high political interest
Cities in italics underline have Water Replenishment District “high interest” sites
Rows highlighted in blue located in OCWD, yellow in Water Replenishment District of Southern California and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power in rose.
Directly applicable Committee membership or legislation in bold red, indirectly applicable
* Term Limits = 14 years, i.e. 6 years in the Assembly and 8 years in the Senate
Figure 4c Assembly Districts, Los Angeles Area
[pic]
Figure 4d Assembly Districts, Los Angeles County and Orange County
[pic]
Table 2b Water Active Legislators Assembly Persons
|Assem Dist. |Assembly Member |Cities |County |Committees |Pertinent 2008 Legislation |
|38 |Cameron Smyth (R) |
| | |
|Term limit 2012 |Assem=2 |
| |Senate=0 |
| |Remain=12 |
|Board Level |Deputy Level |
|Funding to pay for legal actions to induce reticent RPs to engage. |Lobby relevant legislators to establish funds and consider DTSC as lead |
|Revolving fund to pay for clean-ups where readily available RPs are absent|agency. |
| |Contact CalEPA lobbyist to promote DTSC and obtain funding for drinking water |
| |protection. |
|Management Level |Team Leader Level |
|Economical (Business) approach to avoid unnecessary cost and protect |1) Establish MOUs to work collaboratively with Water Districts to avoid |
|“profit”. |lawsuits and obtain funding for joint benefit investigations. |
|Avoid negative press from contaminated drinking water, lawsuits… | |
|3) Assistance obtaining State funding and using DTSC authority to force | |
|polluters to clean-up sites and protect drinking water. | |
|Technical Level |Technical Level |
|Simplified point of contact to protect drinking water resources. |Assign geologists to cover regions for one point of contact with Water |
|Proactive approach to reduce delay in assessing and controlling |Districts. |
|contamination. |Consult Water Districts about Sites before performing action to get water |
|Cooperative relationship designed to simplify regulatory hurdles and |District concurrence. |
|agency boundaries. |Work with Water Districts to help secure funding for joint-benefit projects |
|Technical assistance for smaller Districts including hydrogeology, |and participate in the process. |
|seismology and modeling. |Work with Dept. of Public Health to evaluate contaminated wells and look for |
|Work with Districts to help in Well placement, recharge activities and |sources. |
|injection activities and possible plume interactions. | |
Implementing this plan will require effort at several levels of DTSC. While the grass roots contacts progresses, management must secure resources in the way of staff and funding. The P2dw team will primarily function at the technical level at this time. The team will work collaboratively with the Water Districts and authorities to proactively identify and address emerging issues including characterization of sediments removed from the water during desalinization an/or purification (Waste generated by this process can be expected to increase as readily available water sources are exhausted) and to predict future “hot spots”. Interaction will take the form of personal technical interaction as well as involvement in Associations (see Appendix C) or smaller scale associations such as the Association of Groundwater Authorities
P2dw SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) Analysis
1 SWOT Analysis
A critical step in the planning exercise is the performance of internal assessment and external assessment (of the operating environment) that result in the identification of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. The analysis involves matching external possibilities with internal capabilities. So: Strengths can be maintained, built upon or leveraged and Opportunities can be prioritized and optimized and; Weaknesses can be remedied, stopped or avoided, and Threats can be countered and/or minimized. Table 4a provides the external analysis showing possible opportunities available to us and potential threats we must be cognizant of. Table 4b presents an internal analysis showing where our strengths and weaknesses lie.
SWOT Analysis
Table 4a P2dw External Evaluation
| | |
|Opportunities | |
|Work at grass roots level to identify and mitigate impacts to |Established connections at grass roots level with OCWD and WRD-SLA.|
|valuable drinking water resources. | |
|DTSC is branding itself as pollution prevention and green |DTSC can carry P2 and green chemistry branding to P2 for drinking |
|chemistry. |water (P2dw). |
|Water Districts can fund investigation work to ID contributors if |Sites can be compelled to action if we use our authority. Action |
|DTSC will use its authority to Order action. |can attract public attention and sway perception. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|Threats |Obstacles/Competition/ Resources |
|Water Board (WB) in direct competition (see Appendix B). |WB sees groundwater as their area and may fight to control funding |
| |and authority. See App. B |
|Legal expenses and cleaning Sites very expensive. |Without a viable funding source, we can not actively clean Sites |
|Many landfills that are leaking may not have viable financial |Negative press will come about due to this failure. Additionally, |
|assurance and/or violations. |if the monies set aside are insufficient to correct problems, the |
| |State may have to expend State resources to mitigate the concerns. |
| | |
Table 4b P2dw Internal Evaluation
| | |
|Strengths |What we do well/Advantages |
|Minimal management therefore faster decisions less biased by |DTSC’s authority is centralized under one Director. The Water |
|political directives. |Boards authority and ability to act is dispersed over nine Regions,|
| |each with multiple board members. Board decisions take months. |
|Well educated and experienced staff with experts in modeling, |Can provide services or support to Districts on many levels. |
|hydrogeology, engineering, toxicology, public participation & | |
|seismology. | |
|DTSC has authority to Order Sites to action. |DTSC has been very reluctant to use its authority to Order sites to|
| |action. Even after Orders are made, follow-up is very poor. |
| |Reportedly, this is at least in part due to resource limitations. |
| |We can use Orders to focus work and push issues towards resolution.|
|Ability to perform Indoor Air Risk evaluation, Modeling and |DTSC has geologists trained in specialties we can leverage to |
|Seismology for internal clients and for external clients. |support water districts, especially smaller Districts with limited |
| |resources and capabilities. |
| | |
| | |
|Weaknesses |What we don’t do well/ Disadvantages |
|WB widely seen as the water agency |DTSC is not recognized as the water agency so we must overcome this|
| |perception. |
|WB regulations (Specifically Porter Cologne) is better suited for |DTSC probably has indirect authority and may greatly strengthen |
|groundwater issues. Water Board also has regulatory authority for |this area by working with the WB to leverage our resources and |
|hydrocarbons, which DTSC does not have directly. |authorities. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
Reportedly, the WB has or had funding to evaluate groundwater. The status of this funding is unclear and it is also unclear if the WB will work jointly with DTSC P2dw to jointly protect California’s groundwater. Management should evaluate the likelihood that DTSC and WB can use the funding to get the prototype teams operating.
Mission, Vision, Strategy
The statements provided below are draft statements intended to express the intent of P2dw. As with any good Mission, Vision and Goals statements, they should be re-written with the Team Members to ensure they are encompassing and the team has input and thus buy-in.
1 Proposed Mission
Coordinate and lead the development of an interagency/interdisciplinary team to focus on inter and intra Agency data sharing, and collaboration to minimize duplication and maximize the preservation of our drinking water and our environment. DTSC will work with all relevant stakeholders to efficiently preserve the quality of our drinking water. This approach will include the consideration of the overall environmental and financial cost of action and inaction now and in the long term to leave our children a safe, economically viable California.
2 Proposed Vision
DTSC will lead the effort to integrate all available State resources to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of water protection operations. Our approach will be to pull data from contaminated Sites and impacted drinking water (monitoring wells) to determine the best approach to protect drinking water. Our primary focus will be to find the best mechanism we can use to protect drinking water. Our secondary focus will be maximizing the use of California’s monies by balancing short term capital costs and long Operation and Maintenance costs. Thirdly, the Team will examine the net environmental gain (the environmental cost of clean-up verses the benefit) to find the best use of California’s resources.
3 Strategic Goals and Objectives
Establish cooperative working relationship with drinking water quality stakeholders, especially water purveyors, Water Districts, California Dept. of Public Health, Department of Water Resources and the Water Board to share data and resources.
1. Establish a team of professionals to provide services to agencies and water districts in need of specialized services.
2. Minimize the money spent tin litigation and maximize the investment of available funds into activities that benefit the citizens of California and the protection and preservation of our drinking water.
3. Audit agency records in areas where notable water degradation is suspected and coordinate the efforts of oversight agencies in the protection of groundwater. This includes managing CUPA activities where necessary.
4. Evaluate GAMA data and use the data to identify potential contaminant trends and or possible polluters.
5. To use and share available data with Water Districts, California Dept. of Public Health, Department of Water Resources and the Water Board to Identify and protect contaminated public and private water supply wells in California.
6. In conjunction with Water Districts, California Dept. of Public Health, Department of Water Resources and the Water Board, DTSC will share data and resources to rank and prioritize the Wells depending on use, need, service area and impact and evaluate the most cost effective way to provide safe drinking water.
7. Determine if source reduction alone will be protective or if well head protection provides the greatest benefit to Californians. The team will be cognizant that environmental remediations have a “carbon cost” and the most environmentally protective approach must consider a balance between the existing contamination and the “cost” to clean it up.
8. Identify probable sources of drinking water based on CDPH/DTSC/Water Board/OCHCA data bases and records. Coordinate effort to protect the water quality at those sources.
9. Track progress for all involved Drinking Water Pollution Prevention stakeholders and support water districts in the protection of drinking water by supporting the acquisition of special funding and management the use of State funds to expedite groundwater protection.
10. Integrate green technology where possible to minimize our impact on the environment, including considering the total carbon balance in remedial activities.
11. Work with groundwater authorities to coordinate groundwater replenishment efforts with site remediation to minimize their impact and ensure their activities do not exacerbate Site problems.
Proposed Outputs
Outputs will initially consist of the following:
1) The establishment of quarterly meetings with three Water Districts in Southern California, the Dept. of Public Health (DPH) and other relevant public agencies. The meetings will be tracked to show Action Items, responsible person and action to highlight strengths and weaknesses in the process.
2) Meetings with DTSC and Water Board Project Managers to evaluate the current conditions at Sites of interest around impacted wells
3) Search of relevant databases to evaluate known Sites around impacted wells.
4) Search of DPH data bases to evaluate potential sources areas around impacted wells.
5) Develop a ranking system to calculate the Risk that identified sites may pose to drinking water. (in conjunction with Mike Sorensen and the Data and Information Office).
6) Search databases and rank potential Sites that may impact groundwater and drinking water in the future so we can plan to direct funds to high value Sites.
7) Quarterly reports to Management showing progress for the quarter and significant issues. The Quarterly report will include an evaluation of Senators and Assembly members potentially impacted by P2dw activities and the socio-economic outcomes of the activities.
Proposed Outcomes
The following are the expected outcomes which will be very difficult to measure because they largely represent intangible items.
1) Minimize DTSC exposure to lawsuits/litigation due to inactivity on Sites.
2) Identification, listing and possibly issuing Consent Orders for Sites that impact drinking water resources.
3) Reduced expenditures and reduced impact to drinking water.
4) Focused use of resources on high value targets (Drinking Water Wells).
Performance Measures
The proposed metrics will reside primarily at three levels during the start-up phase of P2dw. These metrics focus on project start-up and early maintenance. They should be expected to change as we shift from start-up functions (early outreach) and move into maintenance functions. Start-up Level One will include establishing contacts with relevant stakeholders and establishing regular meetings to identify at risk or impacted drinking water wells, rank the wells, and identify known and potential sources. Level One will be primarily performed by the Team Leader.
Start-up Level Two resides at the technical level and will involve identifying and reviewing the technical aspects of work being performed in the vicinity of the impacted or potentially impacted wells and ensuring that the work is designed to stop any potential migration towards the well, control the plume and remediate the plume. In cases where Sources areas are suspected or indicated via Dept. of Public Health Well Head Protection Program reports, the technical staff will work with stakeholders, including Water Districts to find and expose such sources.
Start-up Level Three will be the main socioeconomic step. The Team Leader will evaluate the known releases and the impacted wells to evaluate the lost water and/or increased cost for water associated with the impacted well, the number of households impacted, the number cost of the impact and the number of jobs created or lost due to the impacted well (jobs created by the number of people employed to fix the problem and jobs lost by the estimated higher cost for water and inability to use property because of impacted land and/or water and therefore lost tax revenue.
The Start-up phase is anticipated to last four years as we expand from three Water Districts in the Los Angeles/Orange County area to working with Water Districts, DPH and Dept. of Water Resources from San Diego to Sacramento and San Francisco Desired Outcome
Funding Sources
TBD (asked Rick B. for help)
Resources
The estimated resource needs for the Southern California prototype Pollution Prevention drinking water (P2dw) Team are estimates and can be greatly impacted by the actual scope of work. The estimates should be re-evaluated at least annually to improve the accuracy of the estimates and to refocus the team on the team goals.
Table 5a shows the Resource Estimate Worksheet and calculations used to estimate resource needs while Table 5b and Figure 5 show the total needs per year. Column one provides estimates wherein the P2dw Team only addresses subsurface issues and relies on the Program to provide all Project Management, Legal, PPS and Administrative support. Column two estimates assume the entire project will be transferred to P2dw which provide better control but requires more Team resources. Column three provides an estimate of joint DTSC/WB resource needs for a combined team where DTSC manages the subsurface and surface for DTSC projects and the Water Board manages the surface and subsurface portions of the Water Board project near select impacted wells. According to the scenario used in Column three DTSC will supply the coordination and leadership for the joint team and each Agency will provide their own support resources. Resource needs are only shown for Personnel years needed considering the computer hardware, software and office needs are provided in the Administration estimates for the respective Regional offices.
Table 5a Resource Estimate Worksheet
|Scenario |
| |DTSC Sites, |DTSC Sites |DTSC & WB Sites |
| |Water Only |Water & Soil |(joint DTSC/WB operation) |
| | | |Water & Soil |
| |P2dw staff model groundwater and manage |All activities in box to left plus: manage|If DTSC and WB form a Joint DTSC/WB Team, |
| |groundwater conditions including |all Site activities, including report |then combine the resources from the column |
| |coordinated gauging, sampling parameters, |review, meetings, scheduling, surface |to the left and this column. |
| |frequency, selected report review. Source |characterization, EnviroStor input, | |
| |identification, groundwater |letters, CEQA, etc. | |
| |characterization and remediation | | |
|Prototype (Year 1) 3 Water Dist; 6 Sites in LA/OC |
|Resource Estimates |0.1 Team Sponsor |0.1 Team Sponsor |0.1 Team Sponsor |
|(Personnel Years) |1.0 Team Leader |1.0 Team Leader |0.0 Team Leader |
| |3.0 Hydrogeologist |3.0 Hydrogeologist |1.0 Hydrogeologist |
| |0.3 Modeler |0.3 Modeler |0.1 Modeler |
| |0.2 Engineer |0.3 Engineer |0.2 Engineer |
| |0.1 PPS |2.0 PM/Eng/Geo* |1.0 PM* |
| |0.2 Legal |0.5 Student |0.5 Student |
| | |0.3 PPS |0.3 PPS |
| | |0.3 Legal* |0.3 Legal* |
| | |0.4 Admin |0.2 Admin |
|Prototype (Year 2) Year 1 targets plus SD Water Dist, Riverside & 1 other in SCal |
|Additional Resource|2.0 Hydrogeologist |2.0 Hydrogeologist |1.0 Hydrogeologist |
|Estimates(Personnel|0.2 Modeler |0.2 Modeler |0.1 Modeler |
|Years) |0.2 Engineer |0.3 Engineer |0.2 Engineer |
| |0.1 PPS |2.0 PM/Eng/Geo* |1.0 PM* |
| |0.2 Legal |0.5 Student |0.5 Student |
| | |0.2 PPS |0.2 PPS |
| | |0.2 Legal* |0.2 Legal* |
| | |0.2 Admin |0.2 Admin |
|Prototype (Year 3) Year 2 targets plus Oakland, Santa Clara & Sacramento Water Dist. |
|Additional Resource|3.0 Hydrogeologist |2.0 Hydrogeologist |2.0 Hydrogeologist |
|Estimates |0.2 Modeler |0.2 Modeler |0.1 Modeler |
|(Personnel Years) |0.2 Engineer |0.3 Engineer |0.2 Engineer |
| |0.1 PPS |2.0 PM/Eng/Geo* |1.0 PM* |
| |0.2 Legal |0.5 Student |0.5 Student |
| | |0.2 PPS |0.2 PPS |
| | |0.2 Legal* |0.2 Legal* |
| | |0.2 Admin |0.2 Admin |
Names in bold = full time team members, in Blue supplied by Water Board, in Black & Red supplied by DTSC
Scenario 1 does not need legal, admin, PPS or PM because they are provided in the existing structure
* indicates legal time and PM time could increase substantially if a Consent Order is filed against multiple sites in a geographic area setting up an RP groundwater group. Additionally, an Order against multiple Sites may cause WB Sites to come under DTSC further impacting legal and PM resources.
Table 5b Resource Estimates (Totals)
| |DTSC-Water Only |DTSC Soil & Water | |DTSC & WB Total PY |
| | | |DTSC / WB | |
|2008-09 |4.9 PY |8.2 PY |8.2 + 3.7 = |11.9 PY |
|2009-10 |7.6 PY |13.8 PY |13.8 + 7.1 = |20.9 PY |
|2010-11 |11.3 PY |19.4 PY |19.4 + 11.5 = |30.9 PY |
Figure 5 Groundwater Team Resource Estimates over First Three Years of Implementation
[pic]
Authority
TBD (asked Rick B. for help)
1 Chapter 6.5
See Appendix H, Comparison of Authorities
2 Chapter 6.8
See Appendix H, Comparison of Authorities
3 Water Code
See Appendix H, Comparison of Authorities
Porter Cologne
TBD
CUPA Regulations
TBD
DTSC Capabilities
DTSC is capable of approaching the groundwater Holistically by looking at surface expose issues
Modeling
Groundwater
Indoor air
Seismic and seismological evaluations
Strategy
We have already begun our outreach to water districts that provide water for over 10 percent of our States population. For these reasons, we should focus on the Southern California market, where we develop our approach and process, consolidate our progress and then expand our outreach to the Sacramento, Berkeley and central California regions. Penetration into the southern California market alone can provide access to Water Districts serving nearly 50% of the States population.
Market penetration will be made on two fronts; Differentiation, [setting ourselves apart from others (the Water Board)] and Customer Relationship. While Differentiation involves establishing a DTSC “brand” where Water Districts will separate us from the Water Board in their own mind, we will need to reinforce that differentiation by developing a relationship with the Water Districts. The Customer Relationship strategy must be based on the following principals:
• Simplifying the customers lives,
• Providing personalized customer service and ongoing benefits,
• Providing customized solutions,
• Personal contact and
• Continuous learning.
(Strategy, Harvard Business Essentials, Harvard Business Press, 2005, pg 36-41)
The intent will be to establish a beachhead with the Water Districts before the Water Board is able to compete. One the beachhead is established we need to maintain progress (movement) to keep the Water Board off-balance (the Judo Principal). Differentiation will come in the form of working with the Water Districts to help them solve technical issues and track back from contaminated wells to source areas. We can then further assist them by using our authority to or at least threats of our authority to maintain movement. Every effort must be made to maintain movement on every Site. Sections 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 provide a list of tasks we should consider for the primary targets we’ve selected. Performance measures will be tied to the tasks to measure our progress and to maintain momentum. Appendices F, and G provide an early draft Team Charter and Site Ranking Approach form.
1 DTSC/Water Purveyor Collaboration/Coordination
• DTSC/Water Replenishment District/Water Board (Los Angeles)/USEPA
• Memorandum of Understanding
• Quarterly meetings
• Drinking water protection
• Short term/high priority issues (known impacted wells)
• Long term/medium priority issues (identify high potential impact areas)
• Coordinate investigation activities
• Coordinate regional events (water injection etc)
• Action Items/tracking/metrics
2 DTSC Orange County Water District/Water Board (Santa Ana Region)/Orange County Health Care Agency
• Memorandum of Understanding
• Quarterly meetings
• Drinking water protection
• Short term/high priority issues
• Coordinate investigation activities
• Coordinate regional events (water injection etc)
• Action Items/tracking/metrics
• Santa Ana Watershed Protection Authority
• Exploration phase
• Interagency Coordination
• GeoSym
• DTSC/Water Boards/Department of Water Resources/Caltrans/Water Agencies
• Roundtable
3 LA Dept. of Water and Power
• Memorandum of Understanding
• Quarterly meetings
• Drinking water protection
• Short term/high priority issues
• Coordinate investigation activities
• Coordinate regional events (water injection etc)
• Action Items/tracking/metrics
• Interagency Coordination
• DTSC/Water Boards/Department of Water Resources/Caltrans/Water Agencies
4 Water Well Testing
Private Wells
GAMA
Public Wells
Contaminant Mapping
Enforcement Actions
1 Court Cases
Appendices
Appendix A Legislative Districts
Figure 4a Senate Districts, Los Angeles Area
[pic]
Figure 4b Senate Districts Los Angeles and Orange County
[pic]
Table 2 List of Senate Districts and Cites
|Senate Dist |Senator |Cites |County |Committees |Pertinent 2008 Legislation |
|20 |Alex Padilla |LA, San Fernando |LA |Education |na |
| | | | |Budget and Fiscal Review | |
| | | | |Government Organization | |
| | | | |Energy, Utilities & Communications | |
| | | | |Labor and Industrial Relations | |
| | | | |Subcommittees | |
| | | | |Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee| |
| | | | |#3 on Health and Human Services | |
| | | | |Select Committees | |
| | | | |California's Horse Racing Industry | |
| | | | |California Wine Industry | |
| | | | |College and University Admissions and| |
| | | | |Outreach | |
| | | | |High School Graduation | |
| | | | |International Business Trade | |
| | | | |Manufactured Homes and Communities | |
| | | | |Obesity and Diabetes | |
| | | | |Joint Committees | |
| | | | |Joint Legislative Audit Committee | |
| | | | |Joint Legislative Budget Committee | |
| | | | |Rules - Joint Rule 40 | |
|30 |Ron S. Calderon (D) |Bell, Bell Gardens, |LA |Chair: |SB 887 - Local public water |
| | |Commerce, Cudahy, | |Elections, Reapportionment and |agencies: low-income rates |
| | |Huntington park, La Mirada,| |Constitutional Amendments Committee. | |
| | |LA, Montebello, Norwalk, | |Select Committee on International | |
| | |Pico Rivera, Santa Fe | |Business Trade. | |
| | |Springs, S. El Monte, South| | | |
| | |gate, Whittier, E. La | |Member: | |
| | |Mirada, E. LA, Florence | |select Committee on the Alameda | |
| | |Graha., Hacienda Heights, | |Corridor, | |
| | |S. Whittier, W. Whittier | |Energy, Utilities and Communications | |
| | | | |committees, | |
| | | | |California Film Commission | |
|32 |Gloria Negrete McLeod |(LA) Pomona, (San |LA/San |Chair: Select Committee on the |SB 1030 Water: urban water |
| | |Bernardino) Chino, Colton, |Bernardino |Alameda Corridor, |suppliers. |
| | |Fontana, Montclair, | | | |
| | |Ontario, Rialto, San | |Select Committee on Perchlorate | |
| | |Bernardino, Bloomington, | |Contamination, Chair | |
| | |Muscoy | |Legislative Caucuses: | |
| | | | |Legislative Women's Caucus, Chair | |
| | | | |Latino Legislative Caucus | |
| | | | |Senate Standing Committee | |
| | | | |Assignments: | |
| | | | |Governmental Organization | |
| | | | |Health | |
| | | | |Public Employment and Retirement | |
| | | | |Veterans Affairs | |
|33 |Dick Ackerman (R) |Anaheim, Buena Park, |Orange |Standing Committees |SB 1631 - Public works: |
| | |Fullerton, Irvine, | |Judiciary |environmental complaints:|
| | |Laguna Hills, Laguna | |Labor and Industrial Relations |fines |
| | |Niguel, Laguna Woods, | |Legislative Ethics | |
| | |Lake Forest, Mission | |Joint Committees | |
| | |Viejo, Orange, Rancho | |Joint Committee On Rules | |
| | |Santa Margarita, Santa | | | |
| | |Ana, Tustin, Villa Park,| | | |
| | |Aliso Viejo, Coto De | | | |
| | |Caza, Foothill Ranch, | | | |
| | |Las Flores, Portola | | | |
| | |Hills, Tustin Foothills | | | |
|38 |Cameron Smyth ® |Glendale, Los Angeles, |LA |Member: |na |
| | |Santa Clarita, Simi | |Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials | |
| | |Valley | |Local Government | |
| | | | |Utilities and Commerce | |
|57 |
Issue Summary
The surface waters of the State, which include streams, lakes, wetlands, and coastal waters, support beneficial uses such as municipal supply for drinking, agricultural supply for crop irrigation, habitat for aquatic life and wildlife, and recreation. For a surface water body to support one or more beneficial uses, the water must be of sufficient quantity and meet established quality standards for pollutants. Pollutants can be from a single, discrete source (point source), such as a pipe or culvert, or be carried in diffuse runoff that covers a wide area (non-point source). Under the federal Clean Water Act, the Water Boards are required to identify water bodies that do not meet water quality standards and bring them into compliance.
Why this issue is so critical to the Water Boards and to our stakeholders
As California’s population continues to grow and climate change impacts continue to occur, greater demands will be made on the available water supply, and threats to water quality from known and emerging pollutants will increase, potentially causing further impairments to the waters and their uses. When waters are impaired, the State is deprived of critical water supplies that it needs to support its growing population and vital economy. Shortages of water that supports all of its beneficial uses can have broad effects on a wide variety of stakeholders.
Water quality impairments are especially critical as current droughts and expected increases in climate change impacts further limit water supplies.
PRIORITY 2. PROTECT GROUNDWATER
|Improve groundwater quality by reducing waste discharges to groundwater in high use basins by 25 percent by 2020. |
Issue Statement
Issue Summary
Saltwater intrusion and discharges of waste have impacted or impaired the water quality and beneficial uses of many groundwater basins throughout the State, making their use for drinking water or for additional storage and supply, a particular challenge. Polluted groundwater may require treatment to render it safe for consumption.
The Water Boards have implemented legislative mandates to protect groundwater quality that includes four elements: (1) prevention of petroleum releases from underground storage tanks through prescriptive containment standards; (2) remediation at sites where discharges of waste threaten water quality; (3) permitting of ongoing discharges of waste, at facilities such as landfills and municipal wastewater treatment plants; and (4) monitoring of groundwater at regulated sites (permitted or remediation) and statewide to assess ambient groundwater quality. Despite these efforts, groundwater quality is poor in many areas due to diffuse sources and urban, agricultural and industrial activities that have not been rigorously regulated by the Water Boards in the past.
Why this issue is so critical to the Water Boards and to our stakeholders
There is increasing reliance on groundwater to meet the water supply demands of a growing population. Concerns regarding the long-term viability of the Delta for drinking water supply, increased attention to restoring habitat, water bodies ecologically impacted by water diversions, and current growth projections have all contributed to the increased importance and reliance on groundwater for drinking and other beneficial uses.
PRIORITY 3. PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLIES
|Increase sustainable water supplies available to meet existing and future beneficial uses by 1,725,000 acre-feet per year, in excess of 2002 |
|levels, by 2015. |
Issue Summary
Demand and competition for the California’s limited water supplies will increase as our population continues to grow and climate change impacts occur. Over the past 50 years, California has met much of its increasing water needs primarily through a network of water storage and conveyance facilities, groundwater development and more recently, by emphasizing the gains to be achieved through water use efficiency. Efficiency has traditionally embraced several strategies, including water conservation and recycling of treated wastewater.
To ensure that present and future generations have sufficient water when and where it is needed, the Water Boards have encouraged water use efficiency practices by: (1) providing funding in the form of grants and loans; (2) conducting, advocating for and funding research; and (3) supporting the updating of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for conservation by urban and agricultural consumers. Most efforts to date have relied upon voluntary participation. Based on projections of the 2002 Recycled Water Task Force, and reflected in the California Water Plan Update of 2005, the State has the potential to recycle an additional 1,400,000 to 1,670,000 acre-feet per year of water beyond 2002 levels by the year 2030 (the 2002 recycled water deliveries were 525,000 acre-feet per year). This is about 23 percent of the available municipal wastewater. Additionally, the California Water Plan Update of 2005 estimates that by the year 2030, the State has the potential to save an additional 1,200,000 to 2,100,000 acre-feet per year of water through urban water conservation (2002 water conservation numbers are not available as water conservation is measured relative to demand).
Why this issue is so critical to the Water Boards and to our stakeholders
Despite the many positive efforts made to date by State and federal funding agencies to promote and fund water use efficiency projects, the State is struggling to meet its goals as defined in the California Water Plan. For recycled water alone, we will likely not meet the established 2010 goal of 1,000,000 acre-feet per year of recycled water use. Stakeholders are concerned about how increasing wastewater recycling can occur without adverse economic impacts. There is also broad-based skepticism about the State’s ability to manage our water supply and reliability needs while maintaining our commitment of environmental stewardship.
Long-range approaches to managing the problem
As we move into the future, we must broaden our definition of efficient water use to include innovative measures that will address the changes in occurrence and quality of water expected to be brought on by increasing population and climate change. The implementation of a comprehensive water use efficiency strategy would leverage the authorities and expertise of all agencies with responsibility for water management in California.
What the Water Boards can realistically do in the next five years
Achieving sustainable water supplies is a multi-faceted, multi-organizational endeavor, and the Water Boards have continuing opportunities to work with others to encourage, support, and require water conservation, water recycling, and water reuse efforts. This includes developing innovative incentives and applying little used regulatory authorities.
PLANNING PRIORITIES
The Water Boards’ planning priorities focus on establishing and improving planning procedures and documents that form the basis of our regulatory framework, and guide our efforts in achieving our mission.
PRIORITY 4. CALIFORNIA WATER QUALITY PLAN
PRIORITY 5. BASIN PLANNING
|The California Water Plan addresses water quality protection and restoration, and describes how the relationship between water supply and water |
|quality is affected across all water supply management strategies, through the development of a California Water Quality Plan. |
|Basin Plans are consistently organized by 2012, and updated by 2015, to provide a clear structure that readily conveys the beneficial uses, water |
|quality objectives, goals for watersheds, plans for achieving those goals, and monitoring to inform and adjust the plans. |
Issue Statement
Issue Summary
California’s Water Code declares the California Water Plan (Water Plan) as the master plan to guide the orderly and coordinated control, protection, conservation, development, management and efficient utilization of the water resources of the State. Water management activities will often have unavoidable environmental consequences, and the link between water supply management and water quality are inseparable.
Water supply and use are inherently linked to water quality. Various water management actions, such as transfers, water use efficiency, water recycling, conjunctive use of aquifers, storage and conveyance, Delta operations, land fallowing, and hydroelectric power, potentially have water quality impacts. Alternatively, degraded water quality can limit, or make very expensive, some water supply uses or options because the water must be pretreated. Furthermore, water managers increasingly recognize that the water quality of various water supplies needs to be matched with its eventual use and potential treatment. (From the California Water Plan Update 2005).
Regional Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans), and the statewide water quality control plans and policies, such as the Ocean Plan and the Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California, are the cornerstone of California’s regulatory programs and are part of the Water Plan. They contain the regulations to protect water quality. These plans describe the beneficial uses that each water body supports, including drinking, swimming, fishing, protection of aquatic life, and agricultural irrigation, among others. The Basin Plans contain the water quality objectives, policies, and programs.
The implantation for the protection of surface and ground waters, and are the key basis for our regulatory actions. Basin Plans and statewide plans are reviewed on a three-year cycle, known as the triennial review process (required by the federal Clean Water Act), where new science, new water quality problems, and new or changed laws are considered. Based on regional priorities, the Basin Plans are amended to reflect specific changes and local concerns. However, because these amendments are resource and time intensive, what can be addressed is generally constrained to the highest priority needs.
What the Water Boards can realistically do in the next five years
To readily identify statewide and regional water quality protection requirements in considering water supply issues, we will collaborate with the Department of Water Resources, who is responsible for updating the Water Plan, to integrate the Basin Plans and other statewide water quality control plans and policies into a comprehensive Water Quality Plan.
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE PRIORITIES
The Water Boards’ organizational priorities focus on strategies for improving effectiveness, efficiency, transparency, and accountability in conducting our and communicating with the public we serve. These priorities are interrelated and are linked to successfully addressing our environmental and planning priorities.
PRIORITY 6. TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
|Improve transparency and accountability by ensuring that Water Board goals and actions are clear and accessible, by demonstrating and explaining |
|results achieved with respect to the goals and resources available and by enhancing and improving accessibility of data and information. |
Issue Summary
Performance-based organizations demonstrate results for internal and external stakeholders. Organizations that are committed to performance set goals based on the problems they want to solve, establish performance measures with targets for those goals, gather data and information to evaluate progress, results, and strategies, and broadly communicate this information.
Long-range approaches to managing the problem
The Water Boards are working towards a results-based regulatory system that promotes efficiency and effectiveness, organizational and environmental results, and transparency and accountability. Collaboration with the public, regulated and scientific communities, and other stakeholders to establish specific and realistic is the goal.
PRIORITY 7. CONSISTENCY
|Enhance consistency across the Water Boards to ensure our processes are effective, efficient, and predictable, and to promote fair and equitable |
|application of the laws, regulations, policies, and procedures. |
Issue Summary
The Water Boards operate in a dynamic environment and our organization has allowed regional variation within a coordinated framework. Individual Water Boards find innovative and creative solutions to meet the challenges that arise.
However, over the years, some Water Board stakeholders have expressed frustration with a lack of consistency among the Boards. For example, stakeholders and the Legislature have named consistency in enforcement of the State’s water quality laws as one of the most important issues facing the Water Boards. The public participation process and stormwater regulation are two additional high priority areas identified by stakeholders.
Why this issue is so critical to the Water Boards and to our stakeholders
California’s diverse geography, landscape, population, social, cultural, and economic context prevent a “one size fits all” approach to managing natural resources. At the same time, consistency can help to ensure that stakeholders receive equitable treatment.
PRIORITY 8. WORKFORCE CAPACITY
|Ensure that the Water Boards have access to information and expertise, including employees with appropriate knowledge and skills, needed to |
|effectively and efficiently carry out the Water Boards’ mission. |
Issue Summary
Building workforce capacity is about assessing the employee resources needed to meet the Water Boards’ current and future program requirements and taking the actions to meet these needs. It is estimated that 36 percent of Water Board rank-and-file employees and over 60 percent of our managers are eligible to retire. Filling these positions, especially as limited compensation levels are faced, will be challenging. The actions that will need to be taken to help workforce needs are: (1) recruiting to fill important vacancies; (2) growing leadership capacity, and promoting individual development and advancement; (3) providing direction and guidance for allocating staffing resources; (4) providing a clear rationale for linking expenditures for training, career counseling, and recruiting efforts to resource needs; and (5) maintaining or improving a diversified workforce.
2/08 San Diego Water Board Executive Officers Rpt excerpt
Appendix D
Association of California Water Agencies
Retrieved 6/13/08 from
|[pic] |[pic] |
|[pic] |[pic] |
| | |
|[pic] |HOME > PRODUCTS & SERVICES > SPONSORS |
| | |
|[pic] | |
| |Sponsorship Opportunities |
|[pic] | |
| |2007 ACWA Sponsors |
|[pic] | |
| | |
|[pic] |[pic] |
| | |
|[pic] | |
| | |
|[pic] | |
| | |
|[pic] | |
| |ACWA's Sponsorship Program will allow your organization increased exposure within California's water community and beyond . . . |
|[pic] |How ACWA's Sponsorship Program Works |
| |ACWA Sponsorship Opportunities: |
|[pic] |Conference |
| |DC Conference |
|[pic] |Legislative Symposium |
| |Continuing Legal Education Workshop |
|[pic] |Scholarships |
| |Sponsorship Levels: |
|[pic] |Platinum Level: $10,000+ Should we Consider a Sponsorship? |
| |Vouchers for four complimentary conference registration "packages" to be used the following year. |
|[pic] |Banner with logo displayed at Fall Conference. |
| |Company logo printed on sponsor tab of fall conference program. |
|[pic] |Voucher for a complimentary conference exhibit booth to be used the following year. |
| |Appreciation plaque to be awarded at the fall conference. |
|[pic] |All of the recognition included in the Bronze Level |
| |Gold Level: $5,000 - $9,999 |
|[pic] |Vouchers for four complimentary conference registration "packages" to be used the following year. |
| |All of the recognition included in the Bronze Level |
| |Silver Level: $2,000 - $4,999 |
| |Vouchers for two conference registration "packages" to be used the following year. |
| |All of the recognition included in the Bronze Level |
| |Bronze Level: $500 - $1,999 |
|[pic] |Acknowledgement in ACWA News |
| |Listing in conference program and signage during conference |
|[pic][pic][pic][pic][pic] |Representatives from sponsoring companies who attend conference will be identified as a sponsor on his/her badge. |
|[pic] |For more information on these and other sponsorship opportunities, contact Lori Doucette or Monet Vela at 888.666.2292 or 916.441.4545.|
|[pic] |[pic] |
|[pic] |Conference Sponsorship Opportunities |
|[pic] |Thanks to our sponsors, we are constantly increasing our efforts to make improvements in planning and sponsoring high-quality |
| |conference programs. This fall ACWA will be holding its 2008 Conference & Exhibition, December 2 - 5. We invite you to participate in |
|[pic] |the following sponsorship opportunities: |
| |Conference Program Printing ($375 - $1,750) |
|[pic] |Opening Wednesday Multi-Media Presentation ($1,000+) |
| |Opening Breakfast ($2,000+) |
|[pic] |Wednesday Luncheon ($2,000+) |
| |Thursday Luncheon ($2,000+) |
|[pic] |Hans Doe Forum Breakfast SPONSORED |
| |Committee Meetings Lunch, Tuesday ($1,000+) |
|[pic] |Networking Continental Breakfast, Thursday ($1,500+) |
| |Program Session refreshments ($1,000+) |
|[pic] |Thursday Evening Event ($2,500+) |
| |Thursday Evening Reception ($1,000+) |
|[pic] |Opening Night Reception in the Exhibit Hall ($350+) |
| |Tote Bags ($6,000+) SPONSORED |
| |Lanyards ($5,000) SPONSORED |
| |Luggage Tags ($2-5,000) |
| |Refreshments in the Companion's Hospitality Room ($1,200-$1,400) |
| |This is a great way to show ACWA public agency members what you can do for them while, at the same time, show your support for ACWA. |
| |Please refer to the At-A-Glance flyer that details the recognition received by our sponsors. |
| |If your agency / organization is interested in sponsoring the 2008 Fall Conference & Exhibition, please complete and return the |
| |Sponsorship Reservation Form. |
| |Sponsorship deadlines for the 2008 Fall Conference & Exhibition: |
| |To be determined. Check back soon. |
| |If you have any questions, please contact Lori Doucette or Monet Vela at 916.441.4545 or 888.666.2292. |
| |[pic] |
| |[pic] |
| |DC Conference |
| |The ACWA DC conference provides direct contact with many decision makers impacting federal water and environmental policy in |
| |California. |
| |As a sponsor of this event, your organization will have the opportunity to get its name in front of some of the most influential people|
| |in the nation's water industry. |
| |Some suggestions for sponsorships of this event include: |
| |Opening Reception |
| |Continental Breakfasts |
| |Luncheons |
| |Congressional Receptions |
| |Tote Bags |
| |Printed Materials |
| |If you have any questions, please contact Melissa Hensley at 916.441.4545 or 888.666.2292. |
| |[pic] |
| |[pic] |
| |Legislative Symposium |
| |This annual one-day seminar provides an understanding of the latest issues facing California's state legislative arena. |
| |Some suggestions for sponsorships include: |
| |Luncheon |
| |Printed Materials |
| |Refreshment Breaks |
| |Continental Breakfast |
| |If you have any questions, please contact Lori Doucette at 916.441.4545 or 888.666.2292. |
| |[pic] |
| |[pic] |
| |Continuing Legal Education Workshop |
| |This annual two-day workshop provides attorneys and others interested in California water law the opportunity to receive the most |
| |current information on legal issues affecting the California water community. Attorneys may earn MCLE credits. ACWA is a State Bar of |
| |California |
| |approved MCLE provider. |
| |Some suggestions for sponsorships include: |
| |Luncheons |
| |Printed Materials |
| |Refreshment Breaks |
| |Continental Breakfast |
| |Reception |
| |CDs that contain electronic presentations and speaker bios |
| |If you have any questions, please contact Lori Doucette at 916.441.4545 or 888.666.2292. |
| |[pic] |
| |[pic] |
| |Scholarship Sponsorship Opportunities |
| |ACWA member agencies and associate members are invited to sponsor a $3,000 scholarship (see brochure for details). ACWA has awarded |
| |academic scholarships to college-level students in water resources-related fields annually since 1961. Currently ACWA awards three |
| |$3,000 academic scholarships each year. |
| |In order to expand ACWA's scholarship program to include more student recipients, ACWA members are invited to sponsor one or more |
| |$3,000 scholarships. The scholarships will include the name of the Association and the sponsoring entity. ACWA will administer these |
| |scholarships in the same manner as the other three ACWA scholarships. |
| |If your agency / organization is interested in sponsoring an ACWA scholarship, please fill out and fax back the interest form or you |
| |can fill out and fax back the Scholarship sponsorship reservation form. |
| |For additional information on the ACWA Scholarship Program, please contact ACWA Communications Dept at 916.441.4545. |
| | |
Appendix E
New Team Idea Roadmap and Questionnaire
New Team Idea Questionnaire
1. Submitter Name/Contact Info: Scott Warren; (714) 484-5462, . swarren@dtsc."
2. Program or Office Name: Cleanup Program
3. Date: 6/16/08
4. Idea Number (to be assigned by the OHCWI):
The following questions are intended to explore the possibility and determine the appropriateness of your new team idea. You do not have to answer all of the questions, but please provide as much information as you can and submit it to the Office of Human Capital and Workplace Innovation, as they will work with you to further refine and prepare your idea for presentation to the Teams Steering Committee.
1. What is the business need?
Drinking water is a very valuable commodity in California. The importance of our drinking water is taking center stage because California’s population is approximately 38 million people and it is expected to reach 50 million by 2020. Approximately 50% of southern California’s drinking water is transported from northern California to southern California via aqueducts. The water is then placed into infiltration basins where it recharges drinking water aquifers which are used to distribute the water to the end users.
Contamination from Sites regulated by DTSC and the water Boards is impacting these aquifers and degrading the drinking water quality in many parts of California. The traditional approach of focusing on known contaminated sites has not stopped the impact to our drinking water aquifers; there fore we must find a more efficient approach to drinking water protection. DTSC is evaluating the establishment of a groundwater protection team to focus on stopping contamination from reaching drinking water wells.
The team will focus on prevention in accordance with the Directors emphasis on Pollution Prevention (P2) and will be branded as the Pollution Prevention drinking water team (P2dw).The intent is to work in collaboration with water Districts and expand/establish DTSC services and name recognition deeper into groundwater protection.
2. Is a team the most appropriate vehicle for this need?
Teams pool skills in a common set of work products and generally take time to develop and deliver work products. Team members must be interdependent and share common goals. They need to be given the authority to manage their own work. And in order to work effectively, they need to remain stable for long periods so they become bonded (interdependent) as a team. (Tools for Teams, Building Effective teams in the Workplace, L. Thompson, E. Aranda, S. Robbins and others, Pearson Custom Publishing, 2000, pg 8-9).
To determine when and where a “team” is the best organizational structure for any given project? We may begin by asking ourselves the following:
Do we need quick response to solve this issue or is the issue one that would benefit from a more deliberative process? There two main issues. The first and most immediate is to establish and brand DTSC as an Agency capable of doing and managing complex groundwater assessment that are designed to protect drinking water. The second issue is a very complex, politically sensitive, long term problem. The best approach will require the commitment, competence and resolve that will be developed over time by a team. The team offers the potential to develop a deep trust and group efficacy between the DTSC, Water Board and possibly even USEPA and the Water Districts. Each team member will bring their specific strengths, which when combined in an environment of trust and mutual accountability provides the best chance of success.
Can the members of a team or a Single Leader Unit (SLU) better personalize the collective goals for a given project? This process is to complex and long term for a SLU. SLUs are more temporal and changes in key positions will negatively impact the possibility of success. We will not be able to develop the synergy we need with an SLU. This task clearly call for a Team.
Why is the distinction between Work Groups, SLUs and Teams so important? Because the way one manages depends on what is being managed. In a basic Work Group for example, the leader (or manager) manages the individual work group members. In an SLU, the leader manages the individuals in the SLU and the sponsor manages the SLU leader. In a team, the sponsor directs or manages the team as a unit, rather than managing individual team members. The sponsor may define the outcome they are looking for and the time when tasks must be completed, but the team determines what outputs are necessary to reach the desired outcome and in what sequence they will complete the tasks. The sponsor’s role becomes that of a coach and a resource supplier. For additional information on Teams, refer to Appendix E.
3. What will be the team name? Pollution Prevention drinking water (P2dw)
4. What is the goal or purpose of the team?
A. Protect California’s drinking water by collaborating with Water Districts and using all available data to address known impacts and identify high potential impacts to drinking water wells. (Water Districts represent hundreds of Water Purveyors)
B. Improve DTSC’s efficiency by strategically attacking high potential polluters and by tracking Sites and activities to focus resources on high priority Sites and to minimize DTSC exposure to 3rd party lawsuits
Does this goal/purpose lend itself to accomplishing specific, measurable, achievable, and realistic objectives within a defined timeframe? Yes see the following timeline and schedule for meeting Goals:
A. Begin prototype Team by focusing on primary targets in Southern California in areas of high population/industrialization/political interest,
B. After 300 days expand to secondary targets in San Francisco and Sacramento area.
C. After 600 days expand to tertiary targets in surrounding highly urbanized LA and SD
a. Track number of Districts working in collaboration with us.
b. Tracking to show progress made, wells, homes and people protected
How does this new team idea fit in with the overall Department/Program/Office priorities?
A. Increased transparency and collaboration with Water Districts and the establishment of new relationships with multiple Districts.
B. Minimal legal exposure/resource drain.
How does it relate to DTSC’s strategic objectives and the strategic objectives of the core or support program?
A. Strategic Goal 1, Objective 1.1 Expedite cleanup of regional ground water contamination and protection of public water supply wells for 50% of California’s population.
B. Become recognized as competent, preferred groundwater protection organization.
5. Will the team require staff from more than one program? Yes but it will rely most heavily on Technical staff.
6. Did you discuss your resource needs with the other affected programs?
7. How will you incorporate customers/stakeholder feedback/buyoff into your team concept? We will integrate stakeholder needs by holding quarterly meetings and through a proposed web site where they can provide additional input.
8. Has your Performance Manager and/or Deputy Director endorsed your concept? Yes
9. Do you anticipate requiring assistance from the Office of Human Capital and Workplace Innovation? Only for training assistance.
Appendix F
Work Groups
Single Leader Units and Teams
Teams, Teams Teams. It seems we’re being bombarded by another new buzz word. Ok, Ok, so what is management up to when they say; We’re moving towards a team based structure. Many staff retort in their best Walter Brennan voice; we’ve used teams of geologists, engineers, toxicologists PPS’s and Project Managers since I’ve been here, heck, I’m an expert at working on teams! What the heck is management dreaming-up this time? Many of us think we understand what a team is, but do we really? This article attempts to clarify the similarities and differences between Work Groups, Single Leader Units and Teams.
Work Groups
Work Groups consist of two or more individuals that interact with one another and share at least some interrelated goals. Group members are generally informed of the goals for the Work Group and may or may not be told what to do. They may or may not have a say in the goals or the process.
Single Leader Units (SLU) are work groups that include two or more individuals that interact with one another and share interrelated goals. Group members are told what their role is and what output is expected of them. They do not necessarily have a say in the goals or the outcome. SLU members have not necessarily provided input into the goals or even the process and don’t necessarily have any ownership in the project; they are simply there to do their job.
A Team is also a Work Group. In Teams, the actions of individuals are interdependent and coordinated. Each Team member has particular, specific, critical roles and they have a commitment to common goals and objectives. This is at least in part because each Team member has provided input into the Team Goals and Objectives and they have a responsibility for the Teams output and the outcomes that result from the outputs. (Modified from Building High Performance Teams, CPS Training Center, Dr. Chaim Eyal, 2/13/08). The second characteristic of a team is mutual accountability. Thirdly, teams must develop a culture based on trust and collaboration. Through this team culture, team members are willing to compromise, cooperate and collaborate to reach heir common purpose. And just so it’s clear, we are not saying they compromise quality, but they may compromise a position to get to consensus. Finally teams develop synergy (Tools for Teams, Building Effective teams in the Workplace, L. Thompson, E. Aranda, S. Robbins and others, Pearson Custom Publishing, 2000, pg 6).
The Personal Investment Matrix (Table 1) below demonstrates the levels of personal investment and responsibility for workers on a Work Group, a Single Leader Unit and a Team.
Table 1 Personal Investment Matrix
|No. |Investment/Responsibility |Work Group |SLU |Team |
|1 |Individual Role and Performance goals are provided |x |x | |
|2 |Members roles are provided |x |x | |
|3 |Expected output goals are provided |x |x | |
|4 |Members may act entirely independently |x |x | |
|5 |Members share common, interrelated goals and objectives | |x |x |
|6 |Members establish the Vision for the project | | |x |
|7 |Members agree on goals and objectives to achieve the desired outcome | | |x |
|8 |Members share a dedication to the achievement of specific performance goals | | |x |
|9 |Members agree on their roles, individual goals and integrate the work themselves | | |x |
|10 |The Leadership role may shift in response to changing project requirements | | |x |
|11 |Members have a shared interest in the outcome of their combined work product | | |x |
Table 2 (below) illustrates the relationship between Work Groups, Single Leader Units and Teams.
Table 2 Work Groups, Single Leader Units and Teams
| |
|Work Groups |
| | |
| |Specialized Work Groups |
| | |
|Work Groups | |
| | | |
| |Single Leader Units |Teams |
|3 men digging a trench with shovels: |A work crew: |A “team” of window washers: |
|One can leave and it may slow down the others, |A work crew sent out by a manager to dig a |A “team” of window washers on a 40 story |
|but it will not endanger the success of the |trench and expose a pipe so it can be fixed. |building may have two window washers and one |
|project. In this case, one member may be the |Once fixed, the work crew covers the pipe and |person controlling the scaffold, but they are |
|one calling for “break time” or driving the |re-compacts the soil. This is most likely a SLU|interdependent, coordinated, have specific roles|
|vehicle, but is not leading the effort. |but it may be a Team if their work is |and common goals. Individual actions are |
| |interdependent and coordinated, each member has |critical and directly support completing the |
| |specific roles and they have common goals and |task. |
| |objectives and are working for a specific | |
| |outcome. | |
|Data Input Work Group: |A DTSC project Work Group: |A baseball team: |
|3-4 individuals working in a Data Management |In a DTSC Work group, members focus on |Each has their own special role (such as the 3rd|
|Office. Each individual must meet a quota of |themselves because they are not sufficiently |baseman) but they are all critical to the |
|data to be entered and |involved in planning the unit's objectives. They|success of the team. Even though the 3rd |
|then creates a report to be submitted to their |approach their job simply as a hired hand; the |baseman has his own specific span-of-control, he|
|manager. Their goals are individual, and |geologist, engineer, toxicologist or PM. This |also has a critical role to back-up other |
|similar, but not shared and they are not |is especially true when management can trump the|players, and to help the team score. |
|dependent on each other's work. |group decision. | |
| | |A specialized surgical team: |
| | |Each member has their own special, critical role|
| | |and literally life and death decisions must be |
| | |made by the team or by a team member at that |
| | |moment. Some roles are more critical than |
| | |others (the anesthesiologist perhaps) so there |
| | |may be core team members and non-core team |
| | |members. |
Single Leader Units
The military has relied on SLUs since its beginning. SLUs are a very appropriate work group for situations that call for fast action. SLUs typically require training for the leaders and team members but once trained, can be very responsive. One of the greatest strengths and weakness of an SLU is its success is heavily dependant on the leaders understanding of the situation and their individual ability to respond and direct appropriately. If their understanding is correct and their response is accurate, SLUs can be fast and effective. But an incorrect assessment or an inaccurate response can spell disaster. SLUs are most effective when responding to relatively small events where a rapid response is required (such as during emergency situations).
Because of their heavy reliance on the understanding and interpretation of a single individual, SLUs suitability may decrease in complex multi-faceted projects especially when personnel are prone to rotations and when long term effects must be considered. An alternative is the Single-Leader Unit (SLU). SLUs are more apt to produce results faster in their early stages than teams and may actually serve the organization better when under time pressure. But when situations are complex and time is available, Teams may provide the best approach to problem solving.
Teams
Teams have played an increasingly central role in businesses as companies seek to “flatten” their reporting structures and drive needed changes in business processes and organizational culture. As leadership expert Daniel Goleman points out, “The team is the basic molecule of distributed leadership and the basic unit in which you can change norms throughout an organization” (as Reported in Teams That Click, Harvard Business School Press, 2004, pg 4). But managing a team is very different than managing individuals on a team and requires a very different skill set and mentality.
Teams pool skills in a common set of work products and generally take time to develop and deliver work products. Team members must be interdependent and share common goals. They need to be given the authority to manage their own work. And in order to work effectively, they need to remain stable for long periods so they become bonded (interdependent) as a team. (Tools for Teams, Building Effective teams in the Workplace, L. Thompson, E. Aranda, S. Robbins and others, Pearson Custom Publishing, 2000, pg 8-9). The longer they work together, the less they need a manager [Anne Donnellon, associate professor at Babson College and author of Team talk, the Power of Language in Teams (as Reported in Teams That Click, Harvard Business School Press, 2004, pg 24)].
The vital ingredients essential for teamwork are: Commitment, Competence (technical competence, problem solving ability and interpersonal skills) and Common Goals (a shared vision of why the team exists), Trust, Group Identity and Group Efficacy. Successful teams invest a great deal of time and effort exploring, shaping and agreeing on a common purpose that belongs to the team members both independently and collectively.
Performance Managers, Supervisors, Team Leaders, staff and team members must recognize the difference between managing and interacting with teams and managing and interacting with SLUs and or individuals. They must also recognize the team goals and support the team and team members and help them surmount cross-boundary issues. At DTSC, we need to determine when and where a “team” is the best organizational structure for any given project? We may begin by asking ourselves the following:
▪ Do we need quick response to solve this issue or is the issue one that would benefit from a more deliberative process?
▪ Can the members of a team or an SLU better personalize the collective goals for a given project?
▪ What signals are managers sending to members about how the team should interact?
▪ Does our performance management system reward interdependence and mutual accountability?
Why is the distinction between Work Groups, SLUs and Teams so important? Because the way one manages depends on what is being managed. In a basic Work Group for example, the leader (or manager) manages the individual work group members. In an SLU, the leader manages the individuals in the SLU and the sponsor manages the SLU leader. In a team, the sponsor directs or manages the team as a unit, rather than managing individual team members. This is a shift for the team members, and perhaps more importantly the sponsor. The sponsor may define the outcome they are looking for and the time when tasks must be completed, but the team determines what outputs are necessary to reach the desired outcome and in what sequence they will complete the tasks. The sponsor’s role becomes that of a coach and a resource supplier.
Teams require a whole new level of trust and communication than we have typically seen at DTSC. Team members must be selected carefully for their complementary skills, expertise and commitment. The team members must be committed to the team and to the team goals. Teams must be provided the freedom to go through the team building process and management must ensure the teams have the resources, authority and power they need to perform the tasks at hand. It may not be possible to have supervisors and staff on the same team because the supervisors still have position authority and it may not be possible for team’s members to participate freely when they are not an equal partner on team. This is another reason the distinction between teams and work groups or SLUs is important.
Although some will still disagree, most of our staff has not really worked on teams and our managers have not lead teams. The approach is different and each level (team members, coaches and sponsors) need training in their perspective role. More over, we will need to look at the task on hand and determine which work group style is most appropriate for the situation. In situations where we need rapid response to a pressing issue and do not have the luxury of developing a team, an SLU may be the most effective tool. But if we already have an established team, the team may be the best tool, especially where we need relatively consistent outcomes.
Most of this Introduction is based on the “Introduction presented” in “Teams That Click”, Harvard Business School Harvard Business School Press, 2004). A potion of this introduction was captured from the CPS class “Building High Performance Teams” by Chaim H. Eyal. Additional information may be found in a book called Team Building That Gets Results (Linda Diamond and Harriet Diamond and Tools for Teams, Building Effective teams in the Workplace, L. Thompson, E. Aranda, S. Robbins and others, Pearson Custom Publishing, 2000. A short extract is provided below. (The following information was retrieved
3/4/08 from ).
| |
|The purpose of assembling a team is to accomplish bigger goals than any that would be possible for the individual working alone. The aim and purpose of a team is to|
|perform, get results and achieve victory in the workplace and marketplace. The very best managers are those who can gather together a group of individuals and |
|mould them into a team. Here are ten key differentials to help you mould your people into a pro-active and productive team. |
|Understandings. In a group, members think they are grouped together for administrative purposes only. Individuals sometimes cross purpose with others. In a team,|
|members recognise their independence and understand both personal and team goals are best accomplished with mutual support. Time is not wasted struggling over |
|"Turf" or attempting personal gain at others expense. |
|Ownership. In a group, members tend to focus on themselves because they are not sufficiently involved in planning the unit's objectives. They approach their job |
|simply as a hired hand. "Castle Building" is common. In a team, members feel a sense of ownership for their jobs and unit, because they are committed to |
|values-based common goals that they helped establish. |
|Creativity and Contribution. In a group, members are told what to do rather than being asked what the best approach would be. Suggestions and creativity are not |
|encouraged. In a team, members contribute to the organisation's success by applying their unique talents, knowledge and creativity to team objectives. |
|Trust. In a group, members distrust the motives of colleagues because they do not understand the role of other members. Expressions of opinion or disagreement are|
|considered divisive or non-supportive. In a team, members work in a climate of trust and are encouraged to openly express ideas, opinions, disagreements and |
|feelings. Questions are welcomed. |
|Common Understandings. In a group, members are so cautious about what they say, that real understanding is not possible. Game playing may occur and communication |
|traps be set to catch the unwary. In a team, members practice open and honest communication. They make an effort to understand each other's point of view. |
|Personal Development. In a group, members receive good training but are limited in applying it to the job by the manager or other group members. In a team, |
|members are encouraged to continually develop skills and apply what they learn on the job. They perceive they have the support of the team. |
|Conflict Resolution. In a group, members find themselves in conflict situations they do not know how to resolve. Their supervisor/leader may put off intervention|
|until serious damage is done, i.e. a crisis situation. In a team, members realise conflict is a normal aspect of human interaction but they view such situations as|
|an opportunity for new ideas and creativity. They work to resolve conflict quickly and constructively. |
|Participative Decision Making. In a group, members may or may not participate in decisions affecting the team. Conformity often appears more important than |
|positive results. Win/lose situations are common. In a team, members participate in decisions affecting the team but understand their leader must make a final |
|ruling whenever the team cannot decide, or an emergency exists. Positive win/win results are the goal at all times. |
|Clear Leadership. In a group, members tend to work in an unstructured environment with undetermined standards of performance. Leaders do not walk the talk and |
|tend to lead from behind a desk. In a team, members work in a structured environment, they know what boundaries exist and who has final authority. The leader sets|
|agreed high standards of performance and he/she is respected via active, willing participation. |
|Commitment. In a group, members are uncommitted towards excellence and personal pride. Performance levels tend to be mediocre. Staff turnover is high because |
|talented individuals quickly recognise that |
|personal expectations are not being fulfilled |
|they are not learning and growing from others and |
|they are not working with the best people. |
| |
|In a team, only those committed to excellence are hired. Prospective team members are queuing at the door to be recruited on the basis of their high levels of hard|
|and soft skill sets. Everyone works together in a harmonious environment. |
Appendix G
Preliminary P2dw Team Charter
Elements of a Team Charter
Team Purpose
Team Type
Leadership/Management Type
Required Skills
Selection Requirements
Resource Needs
Boundaries
Approach (meetings, roles, outputs, frequency)
Team Member Commitment
Conflict Management Plan
Strategic Objectives
Metrics and Evaluation Process
DTSC Team Charter Information retrieved 6/16/08 from
Team Project Charter
April 17, 2008
Team Name: Pollution Prevention drinking water (P2dw)
Team Sponsor: Maziar Movassaghi.
Team Leader: Scott Warren
Team Members: David Murchison, Ted Peng, JT Liu + others
Team Consultants: Watson Gin
Proposed Mission
Coordinate and lead the development of an interagency/interdisciplinary team to focus on inter and intra Agency data sharing, and collaboration to minimize duplication of effort and maximize the preservation of our drinking water and our environment. DTSC will work with all relevant stakeholders to efficiently preserve the quality of our drinking water. This approach will include the consideration of the overall environmental and financial cost of action and inaction now and in the long term to leave our children a safe, economically viable California..
Proposed Vision
DTSC will lead the effort to integrate all available State resources to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of water protection operations. Our approach will be to pull data from contaminated Sites and impacted drinking water (monitoring wells) to determine the best approach to protect drinking water. Our primary focus will be to find the best mechanism we can use to protect drinking water. Our secondary focus will be maximizing the use of California’s monies by balancing short term capital costs and long Operation and Maintenance costs. Thirdly, the Team will examine the net environmental gain (the environmental cost of clean-up verses the benefit) to find the best use of California’s resources.
Strategic Goals and Objectives
Establish cooperative working relationship with drinking water quality stakeholders, especially water purveyors, Water Districts, California Dept. of Public Health, Department of Water Resources and the Water Board to share data and resources.
1) Establish a team of professionals to provide services to agencies and water districts in need of specialized services.
2) Minimize the money spent tin litigation and maximize the investment of available funds into activities that benefit the citizens of California and the protection and preservation of our drinking water.
3) Audit agency records in areas where notable water degradation is suspected and coordinate the efforts of oversight agencies in the protection of groundwater. This includes managing CUPA activities where necessary.
4) Evaluate GAMA data and use the data to identify potential contaminant trends and or possible polluters.
5) To use and share available data with Water Districts, California Dept. of Public Health, Department of Water Resources and the Water Board to Identify and protect contaminated public and private water supply wells in California.
6) In conjunction with Water Districts, California Dept. of Public Health, Department of Water Resources and the Water Board, DTSC will share data and resources to rank and prioritize the Wells depending on use, need, service area and impact and evaluate the most cost effective way to provide safe drinking water.
7) Determine if source reduction alone will be protective or if well head protection provides the greatest benefit to Californians. The team will be cognizant that environmental remediations have a “carbon cost” and the most environmentally protective approach must consider a balance between the existing contamination and the “cost” to clean it up.
8) Identify probable sources of drinking water based on CDPH/DTSC/Water Board/OCHCA data bases and records. Coordinate effort to protect the water quality at those sources.
9) Track progress for all involved Drinking Water Pollution Prevention stakeholders and support water districts in the protection of drinking water by supporting the acquisition of special funding and management the use of State funds to expedite groundwater protection.
10) Integrate green technology where possible to minimize our impact on the environment, including considering the total carbon balance in remedial activities.
11) Work with groundwater authorities to coordinate groundwater replenishment efforts with site remediation to minimize their impact and ensure their activities do not exacerbate Site problems
Background: The department has utilized teams for many years and for a variety of tasks. However, the department could improve the effectiveness of using teams by developing a common understanding of team practices, and roles and responsibilities. Also, the development of a process to track teams can help ensure teams do not overlap or duplicate effort, and that teams with similar outcomes benefit from the experiences of each other. The need for coordination of team efforts is critical as the department moves toward using commonly accepted team practices for process improvement, problem solving and project management. A common approach to training, guidance development, tracking progress, and reporting becomes increasingly important as more teams are created.
Stakeholders: Anyone who drinks or pays for water in California.
Team Authority: The Team will have the authority to audit records for any facility of interest and will have the cooperation of any and all DTSC Staff working on a particular project. They will have the authority to review progress and may issue action items and follow up on action items where project staff not on the team will be expected to comply with the action items and schedules.
Appendix H
P2dw Site Ranking Approach
Develop list and map of “high-priority contaminated groundwater sites” (sites with known or imminent threat to drinking water aquifers).
Considerations when selecting the high-priority sites:
Site location and hydrogeology
Distance to nearest groundwater production well
Depth to shallowest water-supply aquifer beneath site
Concentration of detected contaminants in site groundwater
Fate and transport of detected contaminants
Presence of contaminated wells
Status of site characterization with respect to groundwater contamination
Status of site remediation with respect to groundwater contamination
Stage of regulatory agency involvement
Collaboration needed during; data collection, data review, recommendations to facilitate site characterization/cleanup
Appendix I
Comparison of Authorities
Authorities
|DTSC |Water Boards |Water Authorities |
|Health & Safety Code, Chapter 6.5 |California Water Code Sec. 13000: RWQCB is charged with the responsibility of protecting|California Water Code (summary) Sec. 60000: WRD authorized by statute to “protect and preserve the quantity and quality|
| |surface and groundwater quality within the geographic area of it’s jurisdiction, which |of groundwater supplies in the Central and West Coast Groundwater Basins (Basins), and is further authorized to take |
| |includes the Coastal watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. |any action to prevent contaminants from entering the basins, remove contaminants from the basins, and determine persons|
| | |responsible for groundwater contamination in the basins. |
|Health & Safety Code Chapter 6.8 |California Water Code Div 2, Water, Part 4, Chap 1, 2 & 3, Sec. 4025- 4032. Sec. 4025: |California Water Code Div 18, Water Replenishment Districts, Part 1, Sec. 60220. A district may do any act necessary |
| |The dept. shall divide the State into watermaster service areas designed to insure |to replenish the ground water of said district. |
| |practical & economical supervision of the distribution of water. |Sec. 60221. Without being limited to the following enumerations, a |
| |Sec. 4027. Rights are ascertained and determined by: |district may, among other things but only for the purposes of |
| |(a) Under this division; |replenishing the groundwater supplies within the district: |
| |(b) Under by law, |(a) Buy and sell water; |
| |(c) By agreement; |(b) Exchange water; |
| |(d) By permits and licenses subsequent to adjudication or agreement. |(c) Distribute water to persons in exchange for ceasing or reducing ground water extractions; |
| |Sec. 4032. Service areas may be enlarged, reduced, consolidated, or abolished. |(d) Spread, sink and inject water into the underground; |
| | |(e) Store, transport, recapture, recycle, purify, treat or otherwise manage and control water for the beneficial use of|
| | |persons or property within the district. |
| | |(f) Build the necessary works to achieve ground water replenishment. |
|Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is organized and operating pursuant to California Health and |California Water Code Part 4, Chap 1,2 & 3, Sec. 4050: the department may appoint a |California Water Code Div 18, Water Replenishment Districts, Part 1, Sec. 60222. A district may take any action |
|Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5 (commencing with section 25100) and 6.8 (commencing with section |watermaster and if necessary, appoint one or more deputy watermasters for a service area,|necessary to protect or prevent interference with water, the quality thereof, or water rights of persons or property |
|25300). Health and Safety Code section 25259.7 authorizes DTSC to carry out all hazardous waste management |or a court may appoint a public agency as watermaster. |within the district, subject to the limitations contained in Section 60230. |
|responsibilities imposed or authorized by Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended (42 |Div 7 Water Quality, Chap 3, Art. 3 Sec. 13142.5.(e) (1) Adequately treated recycled |Sec. 60223. For the purposes of replenishing the ground water supplies |
|U.S.C. section 6901 et seq.), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act |water should, where feasible, be made available to supplement existing surface and |within the district, a district may do any act in order to put to beneficial use any water under its control or |
|(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended (U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and any regulations promulgated pursuant to these federal |underground supplies and to assist in meeting future water requirements of the coastal |management. |
|acts. Under the Hazardous Substance Act, Health and Safety Code sections 25300-25395.45, DTSC implements a |zone, and consideration, in statewide programs of financial assistance for water |Sec. 60224. For the purpose of protecting and preserving the groundwater |
|program to provide for responses to releases of hazardous substances, including preparation and approval of |pollution or water quality control, shall be given to providing optimum water recycling |supplies within the district for beneficial uses, a district may take any action, within the district, including, but |
|Removal Action Plans (RAPs) for site cleanup activities. DTSC is authorized to enter into enforceable |and use of recycled water. |not limited to, capital expenditures and legal actions, which in the discretion of the board is necessary or desirable |
|agreements with, or to issues orders to potentially responsible parties for site cleanup. | |to accomplish any of the following: |
| | |(a) Prevent contaminants from entering the groundwater supplies of the district, whether or not the threat is |
| | |immediate. |
| | |(b) Remove cont. from the groundwater supplies of the district. |
| | |(c) Determine the existence, extent, and location of contaminants in, or which may enter, the groundwater supplies of |
| | |the district. |
| | |(d) Determine persons, whether natural persons or public entities, responsible for those contaminants. |
| | |(e) Perform or obtain engineering, hydrologic, and scientific studies for any of the foregoing purposes. |
| | |Sec. 60225. A district may take any action outside the district, including, but not limited to, those set forth in |
| | |Section 60224, provided the board finds both of the following: |
| | |(a) The action is reasonably necessary to protect groundwater supplies within the district. |
| | |(b) There is a direct, material relationship between the groundwater supply where the action is to be taken and the |
| | |groundwater supply within the district. |
| | |Sec. 60226. A district may sue and recover the amount of any district expenditures under Section 60224 from the person|
| | |or persons responsible for the contaminants causing the expenditures. In |
| | |proceeding under any state or federal law, a district may recover those expenses from responsible persons and |
| | |governmental insurance funds. In any action the district, if successful, may recover |
| | |reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, as determined by the court. The right or power to recover damages shall |
| | |not be deemed an adequate remedy at law precluding use of injunctive relief under this section or any other provision |
| | |of this division or any other statute. In any action for injunctive relief relating to contaminants, no bond shall be |
| | |required of a district as a condition to granting a preliminary injunction. |
| |Porter Cologne | |
| | | |
| | | |
[pic][pic][pic]
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- scripting npc movement
- from prabhu to cyriljohn vsnl
- natural healing and cancer home
- koebel submission single
- preparation of papers in two column format for the
- health and wellness made simple power publishers
- gordon college
- what causes addictions
- basic morrowind modding part 2
- stephanie huff s eportfolio about me
Related searches
- drinking water lesson for kids
- drinking water testing near me
- drinking water quality issues
- drinking water testing labs near me
- drinking water quality map
- drinking water facts for kids
- drinking water quality by state
- drinking water quality by city
- florida drinking water issues
- best drinking water by state
- plastic drinking water bottle crafts
- pa dep drinking water modules