WEBVTT
00:00:06.080 -->
00:00:14.560This is the Water Foresight Podcast powered by the Aquilaris Group, where we anticipate, frame, and shape the future of water through strategic foresight.
00:00:14.880 -->
00:00:21.359Today's guest is Cynthia Giles, the former assistant administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance with the U.S.
00:00:21.519 -->
00:00:23.280Environmental Protection Agency.
00:00:23.440 -->
00:00:26.000Cynthia, welcome to the Water Foresight Podcast.
00:00:26.079 -->
00:00:28.000It is a privilege to have you with us today.
00:00:28.239 -->
00:00:28.800Thanks, Matt.
00:00:28.960 -->
00:00:29.760Thanks for inviting me.
00:00:30.079 -->
00:00:32.880Well, I'm excited to talk to you.
00:00:33.039 -->
00:00:40.000You have written a wonderful book called Next Generation Compliance Environmental Regulation for the Modern Era.
00:00:40.320 -->
00:00:54.399Now, before we begin, I think it's helpful to get your perspective, your experience at EPA in the world of compliance and enforcement, or perhaps you would call it enforcement and compliance assurance, right?
00:00:55.679 -->
00:00:59.679What is the current state of environmental compliance and enforcement?
00:00:59.840 -->
00:01:03.200If I'm a water utility, if I'm a wastewater utility, what do I experience?
00:01:03.280 -->
00:01:04.480What's that like today?
00:01:04.959 -->
00:01:23.920So my book is about, and I think what we're going to be talking about here today is the big gap between what's hoped for in many public health rules like clean water, clean drinking water, uh, and what's actually being delivered on the ground.
00:01:24.079 -->
00:01:24.319Yeah.
00:01:24.560 -->
00:01:27.840So NextGen is about what's the reason for that gap.
00:01:28.079 -->
00:01:41.920And the basic thesis is that our rules are underperforming today because they contain design flaws that make it easy to avoid, evade, or delay on compliance.
00:01:42.400 -->
00:01:50.400So let me give you a little the brief uh the the um thumbnail sketch of what is what is next-gen.
00:01:50.959 -->
00:01:58.400Uh and I think it's helpful in doing that to say a tiny bit about my background so that people can know how I'm approaching this.
00:01:58.640 -->
00:01:58.879Absolutely.
00:01:59.200 -->
00:01:59.840You may not know.
00:01:59.920 -->
00:02:02.640I I ran a water program for for a state.
00:02:02.799 -->
00:02:04.239Wow in Massachusetts.
00:02:04.319 -->
00:02:10.400I ran the water program uh for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the early uh 2000s.
00:02:10.639 -->
00:02:12.639And I was an assistant U.S.
00:02:12.800 -->
00:02:14.879attorney enforcing environmental laws.
00:02:14.960 -->
00:02:17.840I worked in EPA Region 3 as a career person.
00:02:18.240 -->
00:02:31.039I ran the enforcement office nationally uh as the assistant administrator for OECA under President Obama, and I worked in the Biden air office on uh climate change rules.
00:02:31.199 -->
00:02:31.360Wow.
00:02:31.680 -->
00:02:34.960So I've been doing this work a long time.
00:02:35.439 -->
00:02:43.439Uh uh and and I've been, you know, in the trenches doing cases uh and at the top levels of policy.
00:02:43.599 -->
00:02:51.520And and I would say that there are two beliefs about uh compliance that I have observed in during that time.
00:02:51.919 -->
00:02:54.719One belief is that most companies comply.
00:02:54.879 -->
00:02:56.000Um, you hear this all the time.
00:02:56.159 -->
00:02:58.800Compliance is pretty good, especially large companies.
00:02:58.960 -->
00:03:03.120Uh, you see, here lots of people in environmental policy circles say this.
00:03:03.439 -->
00:03:16.719And the other belief is that compliance is the job of enforcers, uh, that the policy program people write the rules or write the permits uh and set the standards, and then they hand it over to enforcers.
00:03:16.960 -->
00:03:24.000Uh this belief that compliance is the job of enforcers is so common that people don't even know it's a belief.
00:03:24.080 -->
00:03:28.080Uh they think it's just the way things are, uh, you know, like gravity.
00:03:28.240 -->
00:03:28.400Yeah.
00:03:28.639 -->
00:03:32.319Um unfortunately, both of those beliefs are wrong.
00:03:32.719 -->
00:03:39.599In fact, uh serious violations are widespread in all sides of companies, all sectors, all programs.
00:03:39.840 -->
00:03:50.719I've asked over the over the course of my career, I've asked uh many people, many people who do have done environmental protection as their entire careers, um, to guess.
00:03:51.039 -->
00:03:53.759How bad do they think compliance is?
00:03:53.919 -->
00:03:58.719How how common is it for the most serious type of violations to occur?
00:03:58.960 -->
00:04:04.639And the most common answer I've gotten to that question is five to ten percent.
00:04:04.800 -->
00:04:05.680That's their guess.
00:04:06.000 -->
00:04:09.360You wish, okay, it's nowhere close to that.
00:04:09.520 -->
00:04:11.120It's way worse than that.
00:04:11.360 -->
00:04:19.75925% of serious noncompliance is the norm across most environmental programs, and many programs are much, much higher than that.
00:04:19.839 -->
00:04:20.000Yeah.
00:04:20.240 -->
00:04:24.000The other belief that compliance to the job and the enforcers uh is also wrong.
00:04:24.240 -->
00:04:29.199The evidence shows that compliance is primarily the result of rule design.
00:04:29.360 -->
00:04:37.439If if a rule is designed uh to make compliance the default, make it the path of least resistance, uh compliance will be good.
00:04:37.680 -->
00:04:46.240If there's lots of opportunities to evade, to ignore, uh compliance is going to be bad, no matter what enforcement does.
00:04:46.399 -->
00:04:46.720Yeah.
00:04:46.959 -->
00:04:57.920So it's those two, the the universality of those two beliefs that are underlie on almost all environmental policies and are both demonstrably wrong.
00:04:58.160 -->
00:05:05.519Um the book ex the book provides huge amounts of evidence uh uh for for my statement, those are both wrong.
00:05:05.759 -->
00:05:18.399That's what gave rise to uh uh my desire to write the book, and that's what next generation compliance is about, is saying it really matters what happens on the ground in real life uh for these rules.
00:05:18.480 -->
00:05:20.079We're not doing a good enough job.
00:05:20.240 -->
00:05:26.959We're misdiagnosing the reason for the problem, and we need to we need to do much better through better design.
00:05:27.120 -->
00:05:28.959And that's what most of the book is about.
00:05:29.279 -->
00:05:36.879Well, tell us what, and I'll use some fancy terms like high priority violators and and SNCCs, significant non-compliers.
00:05:37.040 -->
00:05:40.079I'll I'll be cool for our inside listeners, right?
00:05:40.240 -->
00:05:42.800In the world of water, I think they refer to them as SNCCs, right?
00:05:42.959 -->
00:05:46.639Significant noncompliers, and there's other people that are majors, yeah.
00:05:46.800 -->
00:05:48.319Yeah, majors and things like that.
00:05:48.399 -->
00:05:50.160And it's it's a it's a framework.
00:05:50.240 -->
00:06:01.279But give us an example of what a design flaw might be in you know the Clean Water Act or the Safe Drinking Water Act that really gives rise to your your myths there that you're you're knocking down.
00:06:01.600 -->
00:06:08.319Okay, well, here's here, and I agree with you that examples really help people to understand this, otherwise can feel kind of abstract.
00:06:08.800 -->
00:06:21.040So uh an example from drinking water, and the reason I pick drinking water is uh polls consistently show that the quality of drinking water is the top of the public's list of you know, public health and environmental concerns.
00:06:21.199 -->
00:06:22.879Drinking water, everyone gets it.
00:06:23.040 -->
00:06:25.519Right why why you need clean drinking water?
00:06:25.759 -->
00:06:34.160So the example is pathogens, and pathogens are just bacteria or viruses uh that can cause illness um in drinking water.
00:06:34.319 -->
00:06:39.839So the Safe Drinking Water Act thinks let's keep those out of our drinking water, let's not have that.
00:06:40.000 -->
00:06:40.240Right.
00:06:40.480 -->
00:06:54.879Nevertheless, um EPA reports estimate that in the vicinity of 16 million cases of acute gastrointestinal distress from pathogens in drinking water uh occur every year.
00:06:55.040 -->
00:06:57.920Uh so it's a it's a significant issue.
00:06:58.240 -->
00:07:05.920The the rule that is supposed to address this, which we're not gonna get into the details of this rule too too too much in the weeze.
00:07:06.000 -->
00:07:06.319Right, right.
00:07:06.480 -->
00:07:11.519But the rule is called called the total coloform rule for those who are who who care about that.
00:07:11.920 -->
00:07:23.040The only thing that it's relevant to know about for these examples is just that it requires sampling uh throughout the drinking water system to figure out if it's meeting requirements to protect people from pathogens.
00:07:23.360 -->
00:07:37.519And uh EPA has said in the past that about 10 million people are served by uh community water systems that are violating the health-based standards for pathogens uh in a year.
00:07:37.759 -->
00:07:40.399Unfortunately, that is that's not close.
00:07:40.480 -->
00:07:42.399Okay, it's way more than that.
00:07:42.639 -->
00:07:54.160And here's three examples from that rule that are that are examples of how design choices can uh result in a worse performance than than people intended.
00:07:54.399 -->
00:08:04.240So one of the things is that the noncompliance violation is based on the percentage of samples over the threshold.
00:08:04.399 -->
00:08:06.879Uh so let's say it's five percent over the threshold.
00:08:07.040 -->
00:08:15.920So if you took 100 samples and you had five over, um uh then or six over, then you'd be over the five percent, and and that would be a violation.
00:08:16.160 -->
00:08:22.800Unfortunately, uh the way the rule is written allows people to take more clean samples to get that number down.
00:08:22.879 -->
00:08:30.480So let's say you get six, and instead of saying, oops, bad on me, I'm a violation, you just take, you know, 110 samples.
00:08:30.639 -->
00:08:30.800Right.
00:08:30.959 -->
00:08:34.399Uh the 10 new ones are clean, and so you're no longer violating.
00:08:34.639 -->
00:08:38.320That strategy is so common that it actually has a name.
00:08:38.480 -->
00:08:40.159Uh, it's called sampling out.
00:08:40.639 -->
00:08:50.480So uh one study that was done of that found that about one-third of the violations were missed by uh utilities that were using that strategy.
00:08:50.639 -->
00:08:51.440So that's one example.
00:08:51.759 -->
00:09:03.039This is that rule's designed to allow people, not prohibit them, but allow people to sample endlessly and then perhaps pick the samples that they want to use for compliance purposes.
00:09:03.120 -->
00:09:04.799Is that the am I oversimplifying it?
00:09:05.120 -->
00:09:10.000Yeah, no, it's not so much that you can pick the samples to use, it's not quite that simple.
00:09:10.159 -->
00:09:33.919But the the methodology that says it's a percentage of your samples without limiting the number of samples or rigidly uh prescribing where they have to be taken, uh, means that there's a lot of discretion and flexibility for a utility uh to change their sampling plan in a way that makes it a lot less likely, if not actually definitively moves them out of the violating zone.
00:09:34.320 -->
00:09:34.720Interesting.
00:09:34.960 -->
00:09:37.519Here's another design feature that that rule has.
00:09:37.759 -->
00:09:38.080All right.
00:09:38.320 -->
00:09:40.399So there's two types of violations.
00:09:40.480 -->
00:09:45.120There's what's called a health bay violation, which is, you know, you had the wrong amount of pathogens, okay?
00:09:45.200 -->
00:09:45.919So that's bad.
00:09:46.080 -->
00:09:46.320Right.
00:09:46.480 -->
00:09:49.039There's also monitoring and reporting violations.
00:09:49.120 -->
00:09:54.559So that means you're supposed to sample so much every month, and you're supposed to report that to the state.
00:09:54.720 -->
00:09:57.840And uh so those are monitoring and reporting violations.
00:09:58.159 -->
00:10:08.080The design of that rule is set up so that health-based violations are have more serious consequences to the utility than the monitoring and reporting violations do.
00:10:08.639 -->
00:10:15.360And the uh, you know, and people thought they had a good reason that they cared more about the health-based violations.
00:10:15.679 -->
00:10:25.279But um the result of that is that if you know you have a violation of a health-based standard, you can just not report.
00:10:25.440 -->
00:10:25.840Right.
00:10:26.080 -->
00:10:33.600And not reporting is a far less serious consequence violation than reporting a health-based violation.
00:10:33.759 -->
00:10:40.639So it is possible for a system to just sidestep the bad consequences by not monitoring or not reporting.
00:10:40.879 -->
00:10:45.120And there were huge numbers of monitoring reporting violations every year.
00:10:45.360 -->
00:10:55.840And GAO did a study and found that monitoring and reporting violations was a strong and statistically significant predictor of health-based violations.
00:10:56.080 -->
00:11:11.759So, what that's telling you is behind all those monitoring reporting violations are uh a number, we don't know how big, but probably a lot, of health-based violations that we don't know about because people just didn't monitor or report.
00:11:12.000 -->
00:11:12.399Wow.
00:11:12.720 -->
00:11:17.120So those are those are two examples of how you can set up a system.
00:11:17.440 -->
00:11:41.679If you're not thinking through what are the consequences of the choices that you're presenting uh for the regulated uh entities, you can create incentives for them uh to obscure uh the real situation on the ground with the uh in this case with quality of drinking water, but it's true in every program, every type of environmental program has uh features of this type.
00:11:41.919 -->
00:11:42.159Wow.
00:11:42.320 -->
00:11:46.960So what my book is about is hey, pay attention to the evidence.
00:11:47.200 -->
00:11:49.919First of all, there's studies and evidence, okay, that this is happening.
00:11:50.000 -->
00:11:51.600This isn't just me speculating.
00:11:51.679 -->
00:11:55.200Uh you know, there's there's data showing that this does happen.
00:11:55.519 -->
00:11:59.600And the evidence is that the impacts are quite significant.
00:12:00.080 -->
00:12:14.559And when EPA reports the national results about how's our compliance with pathogens and drinking water, yeah, they don't have close to, nowhere close uh to the type of evidence they would need to have a real answer to that question.
00:12:14.799 -->
00:12:19.360The only thing that is very clear is that it's many multiples of the number that they're saying.
00:12:19.519 -->
00:12:26.960That's because that's the data that they have, which by the way, the states don't tell EPA about violations, even though they're required to.
00:12:27.200 -->
00:12:27.600What?
00:12:27.759 -->
00:12:28.879Uh yes.
00:12:29.519 -->
00:12:43.120So so for pathogens, uh, about one study found about 17% of the health-based violations were not reported EPA, and 71% of the monitoring reporting violations were not reported EPA.
00:12:43.519 -->
00:12:45.919Sounds like we need to we need to tell Ecos that.
00:12:46.240 -->
00:12:48.480They yeah, I I think they're aware.
00:12:48.799 -->
00:12:49.120Okay.
00:12:49.279 -->
00:12:49.600All right.
00:12:50.159 -->
00:12:50.559All right.
00:12:50.639 -->
00:12:54.879Well, that's uh maybe we need to look at the state review framework again or something like that.
00:12:55.200 -->
00:12:56.399Well, I think there's other answers.
00:12:56.960 -->
00:13:06.080This is my after laying out after laying out the problems and the evidence showing that these problems are widespread and very, very common.
00:13:06.559 -->
00:13:09.679The the intention of the book is to talk about solutions.
00:13:09.919 -->
00:13:21.759And so it turns to okay, now that we know this, and now that we know the violations are much more common than people think, and that rule design is the principal driver of that, what should we do?
00:13:21.919 -->
00:13:23.440Um, and that's what it's for.
00:13:23.519 -->
00:13:24.399That's what the book is about.
00:13:24.720 -->
00:13:25.039Yeah.
00:13:25.200 -->
00:13:29.039So, you know, you use the word next generation, you talk about next generation tools.
00:13:29.120 -->
00:13:35.600And my first question before we talk about the details of that, is it is it simply a legal solution?
00:13:35.679 -->
00:13:38.480Like when we think out next generation, let's talk 20 years.
00:13:38.639 -->
00:13:40.000Where we're where what are the scenarios?
00:13:40.080 -->
00:13:47.600What are we going to look like in 20 years when we come back and you and I are talking in 20 years about the state of compliance in the world of water?
00:13:47.840 -->
00:13:49.600Is it simply just a legal discussion?
00:13:49.759 -->
00:13:59.039Like we look at this through the legal lens, and you and I can talk about, well, we need Congress to do this, and we need EPA to do that, we need the, you know, uh other folks in the executive branch to do this, this.
00:13:59.440 -->
00:14:00.960Or is there another lens?
00:14:01.120 -->
00:14:06.879Is there a moral lens to this that will shape the future of next generation compliance?
00:14:06.960 -->
00:14:09.919And then finally, the technological lens.
00:14:10.080 -->
00:14:20.320Um, are there innovations, tools that are out there that will shape the next generation of environmental compliance and enforcement, specifically in the in the world of water?
00:14:20.559 -->
00:14:25.600So those are three dimensions to the way I think about next generation.
00:14:25.759 -->
00:14:29.039Um your thoughts on on those three three dimensions.
00:14:29.360 -->
00:14:31.600I actually don't think there's three different dimensions.
00:14:31.759 -->
00:14:33.519I think it's all part of one package.
00:14:33.759 -->
00:14:33.919Okay.
00:14:34.480 -->
00:14:40.639Which is the focus of next gen is very practical, non-ideological.
00:14:40.799 -->
00:14:41.440It's practical.
00:14:41.600 -->
00:14:42.399What works?
00:14:42.639 -->
00:14:46.240Okay, what what moves us towards better performance?
00:14:46.399 -->
00:14:52.480There's lots of different, many, many, many different strategies that can be deployed.
00:14:52.720 -->
00:14:54.159So you mentioned high-tech.
00:14:54.399 -->
00:15:03.759There's certainly one of the most transformative revolutions that's happened in the last you know, 10 to 15 years is in monitoring.
00:15:03.919 -->
00:15:08.879Um, monitoring, I mean, just has changed uh as a revolutionized, really.
00:15:09.200 -->
00:15:18.639So we have much more capacity to know what's going on through many different types of monitoring tools than we ever used to have.
00:15:18.960 -->
00:15:22.960And we have other other high-tech tools that can really help with that.
00:15:23.120 -->
00:15:24.799AI, many other things.
00:15:24.879 -->
00:15:26.559Uh we can talk about that.
00:15:26.799 -->
00:15:28.960So technology is certainly one.
00:15:29.039 -->
00:15:34.559Uh, and the IT side of technology is certainly part of that high-tech.
00:15:34.799 -->
00:15:35.919But it's not all high-tech.
00:15:36.159 -->
00:15:40.799I mean, there's many very low-tech things that can be very effective.
00:15:41.120 -->
00:15:42.960Transparency being one.
00:15:43.360 -->
00:15:51.120So in in DC, you know, they had a requirement to host signs at every combined sewer overflow.
00:15:51.279 -->
00:15:55.039Here's a pipe discharging water into this water body you care about.
00:15:55.120 -->
00:16:02.000If there's something gross coming out of here, uh, here's a sign telling you who owns this and who what their phone number is.
00:16:02.240 -->
00:16:02.399Wow.
00:16:02.639 -->
00:16:12.399And, you know, that's an incredibly low-tech way of, and what they found is that that really did inspire those sewage treatment facilities to do a better job.
00:16:12.639 -->
00:16:15.440Uh uh, and there's many, many other things.
00:16:15.519 -->
00:16:27.200I have a whole chapter in the in the book, uh, which I call Next Gen Strategy is a playbook, with the many different ways that there are uh to drive for better outcomes and rules.
00:16:27.279 -->
00:16:40.080And it's a combination of legal, you know, technology, uh just understanding incentives, uh structures, how how you design things so that people are motivated to do what's in the public interest.
00:16:40.320 -->
00:16:42.879There's there's many, many uh answers to that question.
00:16:43.200 -->
00:16:43.440Yeah.
00:16:43.600 -->
00:16:58.399I I only raise the moral ethical angle or lens because, you know, and I'm getting old here, and I I've been involved in this, uh, not as perhaps extensively as you over your career, but it seemed to me a couple decades ago, people just fought this stuff.
00:16:58.639 -->
00:16:59.360They what it?
00:16:59.440 -->
00:17:01.519Uh they they they they fought it.
00:17:01.600 -->
00:17:26.319They didn't want uh, you know, they they were opposed to some things, they they would bring in their lawyers and scientists, and it seems that over time, as the younger crowd comes in and they're the new environmental managers, the VP of this and that, the running uh companies and the running water plants, they have a different mindset, a different ethic when it comes to protecting human health and the environment.
00:17:26.559 -->
00:17:28.160It's not completely foolproof.
00:17:28.240 -->
00:17:35.200It's not they're all not completely, you know, environmental advocates, so to speak, but it's different from several decades ago.
00:17:35.359 -->
00:17:43.200We have a new generation of, say, environmental leaders who might be better aligned with your vision for next generation compliance.
00:17:43.359 -->
00:18:08.319And there is this sort of, uh I'll say, and you can tell me whether you agree or not, but there's maybe a baseline that compliance is the floor, and we have an interest in not only achieving compliance and we're compensated, right, in part by our compliance with environmental laws, but we want to go beyond that, whether it's ISO 14001 or some environmental social governance ESG uh uh framework.
00:18:08.559 -->
00:18:24.559So do you see that there are people who are younger that are becoming leaders in positions of of power decision making that are saying, you know, I I I heard what Cynthia said about next generation compliance and seems pretty straightforward.
00:18:24.720 -->
00:18:25.920Let's work together to do it.
00:18:26.000 -->
00:18:33.920Are you seeing changes in how ethical frameworks are perhaps supporting your vision for the future of next generation compliance?
00:18:34.160 -->
00:18:48.960Well, I would agree with you that um times have changed since the 1970s uh when uh environmental laws was were first a thing, and you know, many companies' response was to resist, resist, resist.
00:18:49.200 -->
00:18:54.880Yeah, those days are behind us uh for the most part, not universally.
00:18:55.200 -->
00:18:59.839And I think the public expects better environmental protection than that.
00:18:59.920 -->
00:19:10.480That, you know, and you know, that has become, you know, that environmental protection is part of the list of things to do for every company is uh I think well understood.
00:19:10.559 -->
00:19:19.839And the idea that you're just gonna escape accountability uh altogether um is is not unheard of, but it is a more rare view.
00:19:20.079 -->
00:19:20.240Yeah.
00:19:20.559 -->
00:19:32.400There are certainly leaders uh in uh the business world and uh and among states, leaders in uh trying to do the best possible job they can.
00:19:33.119 -->
00:19:43.119I would say next gen is completely steps aside from any idea of who should or should want to or what anyone's motivations are.
00:19:43.359 -->
00:19:44.640It's not about that.
00:19:44.799 -->
00:19:54.799Um, it's about designing a system so that it gets the results you're looking for and does not depend on good intentions, bad intentions.
00:19:54.960 -->
00:19:56.319It's indifferent to all that.
00:19:56.400 -->
00:19:58.960It just says we want the these are the results we want.
00:19:59.039 -->
00:19:59.680How do we design?
00:20:00.240 -->
00:20:01.839A system to get those results.
00:20:01.920 -->
00:20:05.759Uh, and that's the job of government when they write rules, is is to do that.
00:20:05.920 -->
00:20:10.480So if people want to be leaders and they want to go beyond, that's terrific, wonderful.
00:20:10.640 -->
00:20:11.680Uh, you know, great.
00:20:11.759 -->
00:20:13.119We we applaud that.
00:20:13.359 -->
00:20:22.000But that you can't have a a public health protection system that depends on that because history shows you that's not reliable.
00:20:22.079 -->
00:20:23.839So don't depend on that.
00:20:24.000 -->
00:20:27.440You need to design your program so that it delivers regardless.
00:20:27.680 -->
00:20:28.000Yeah.
00:20:28.319 -->
00:20:32.400Well, let's talk about some of those tools that you think of.
00:20:32.480 -->
00:20:37.200Um, you know, in your book, you you highlight a couple, but what are these next generation tools?
00:20:37.359 -->
00:20:40.400It's not necessarily just let's just write a new rule.
00:20:40.480 -->
00:20:50.880I mean, you you go into some other innovations, but why don't you tick off in your own order, in your own way, some of these tools that you think will embody next generation compliance?
00:20:51.200 -->
00:20:54.720Well, there's not a one size fits all answer to every problem.
00:20:55.119 -->
00:20:58.960Uh uh, you know, so I know people would love to have that.
00:20:59.200 -->
00:21:09.359Um, but but my experience is that the the most effective rules are ones that are designed to suit the problem uh that you're addressing.
00:21:09.519 -->
00:21:23.920So how to deal with pathogens and drinking water run by a public-facing uh utility is completely different than what you should do for a coal-fired power plant, uh uh air emissions, for example.
00:21:24.079 -->
00:21:26.160Uh so those are the same.
00:21:26.319 -->
00:21:37.599But there are some common um themes, some things that are um uh effective in so many different contexts that it's always uh worth paying attention to.
00:21:37.839 -->
00:21:42.559And I would say at the top of that list, uh, from my point of view is monitoring.
00:21:42.880 -->
00:21:54.079Monitoring has uh just a, especially uh with the with the uh advances in monitoring we've been doing now, we're we're miles away from the old system.
00:21:54.160 -->
00:22:03.119You probably remember the grab sample thing where someone goes out and takes a, you know, sticks their hand in there and grabs a grabs a sample uh and takes it back to the lab.
00:22:03.519 -->
00:22:13.440Um, you know, that's better than nothing, uh, but it it doesn't have anything like the power that something like uh continuous uh monitoring has.
00:22:13.680 -->
00:22:13.839Yeah.
00:22:14.000 -->
00:22:18.079So here's a tiny illustration of the power of continuous monitoring.
00:22:18.240 -->
00:22:27.359So there was a study just published um looking at what happened with coal-fired uh uh power plants during the last shutdown.
00:22:27.599 -->
00:22:28.880What happened with compliance?
00:22:28.960 -->
00:22:38.960This was like an air, an air quality issue, but they looked at uh compliance with uh SO2, Knox, and uh excuse me, PM.
00:22:39.279 -->
00:22:41.200Yeah, a particulate manner.
00:22:41.440 -->
00:22:47.119And SO2 and Knox have continuous monitoring required by other rules.
00:22:47.279 -->
00:22:50.960Uh so those are monitored all the time, you know, all day, all night.
00:22:51.119 -->
00:22:51.359Right.
00:22:51.599 -->
00:22:54.559PM did not have required continuous monitoring.
00:22:54.640 -->
00:23:00.559And what the study found was uh the companies differentially turned off pollution controls.
00:23:00.799 -->
00:23:07.920So they didn't turn off the pollution controls where there was continuous monitoring because they figured, hey, we're stuck, everyone's gonna see that, everyone will know.
00:23:08.000 -->
00:23:09.279Uh so you can't do that.
00:23:09.440 -->
00:23:12.240Uh, but PM doesn't have that, so let's turn those off.
00:23:12.480 -->
00:23:32.079And I mean, I think that's just an incredibly powerful illustration of if you had continuous monitoring, which by the way, um the there was a rule that requires continuous monitoring that the current Trump EPA is trying to pull back, required continuous monitoring for PM at at coal-fired power plants, just for this reason.
00:23:32.240 -->
00:23:35.359It it shows the power of monitoring to change behavior.
00:23:35.519 -->
00:23:36.400That's what it's about.
00:23:36.559 -->
00:23:47.599Our the goal of these next-gen strategies is not to catch people, the goal is to try to inspire everybody to do what's needed to prevent the problems from arising in the first place.
00:23:47.680 -->
00:23:48.640That's the goal.
00:23:48.880 -->
00:23:52.319And continuous monitoring has tremendous power uh to do that.
00:23:52.559 -->
00:23:53.200I remember that.
00:23:53.279 -->
00:23:56.720I I have uh I will admit that I've been to a stack test.
00:23:56.960 -->
00:24:03.680And uh that's when I learned about comms and CEMs, continuous emission monitoring and continuous opacity monitoring.
00:24:03.759 -->
00:24:04.960And I thought, well, that's interesting.
00:24:05.119 -->
00:24:10.559And even back then at my young age, I thought, gosh, you know, and here we are today, right?
00:24:10.720 -->
00:24:17.440What if this happened um, you know, in a monitoring well uh at a RICRA subtitle C or D landfill?
00:24:17.599 -->
00:24:20.799What if this happened as part of your NPDS permit, right?
00:24:21.039 -->
00:24:27.359Um, or in a Safe Drinking Water Act uh well of some sort where you have continuous monitoring.
00:24:27.440 -->
00:24:33.039And and I think you're telling me with the technology related to monitoring, that is very doable.
00:24:33.359 -->
00:24:33.920Space age stuff.
00:24:34.079 -->
00:24:35.119No, that's not space age.
00:24:35.200 -->
00:24:35.519That's today.
00:24:35.759 -->
00:24:37.039Yeah, that's not space age stuff.
00:24:37.119 -->
00:24:38.000That's that's today.
00:24:38.160 -->
00:24:38.319Okay.
00:24:38.640 -->
00:24:40.000We can we can do that today.
00:24:40.240 -->
00:25:03.759Here's one question that I'll I'll ask now, but do you see 20 years from now with this monitoring, do you see this the comms or SEMS or other uh monitoring technology that that would implicate water and wastewater facilities, that it is uh near real time and it is basically fed right to uh the regulator's desk.
00:25:03.839 -->
00:25:10.000They can they can turn on their computer and see what's happening and even predict when there's going to be a violation.
00:25:10.160 -->
00:25:14.000Is that is that today or is that uh next generation?
00:25:14.240 -->
00:25:15.680I don't know what you mean by today.
00:25:15.839 -->
00:25:27.039There's there certainly is one of the advantages of these advanced monitoring things is that continuous monitoring lets the facility know in real time what's going on.
00:25:27.119 -->
00:25:29.279So that allows them to adjust their own behavior.
00:25:29.440 -->
00:25:31.440That's very powerful.
00:25:31.599 -->
00:25:46.000Um, there is also the potential to have government know in real time, which adds another level of motivation to the system for facilities to understand that cutting corners has potentially will be noticed.
00:25:46.079 -->
00:25:50.799So so maybe it's just not uh advisable to do that, which is a good thing.
00:25:50.960 -->
00:25:56.000We we'd like people to not do that, uh, and we'd like them to do it necessarily to protect public health.
00:25:56.160 -->
00:25:58.720So yes, I think that's possibly a thing.
00:25:58.799 -->
00:26:05.599I don't think government wants to be in dated with you know continuous monitoring from every cell in the country.
00:26:05.680 -->
00:26:08.880I don't think that's a I don't think that's a a viable system.
00:26:09.119 -->
00:26:22.720But if you had if you had continuous monitoring, there would be ways to filter that data to spot the things that are real alarm bells where you can say, oh, okay, you know, that's posing a real risk to the community now.
00:26:22.960 -->
00:26:25.039So that's something that requires some attention.
00:26:25.359 -->
00:26:25.599Yeah.
00:26:25.759 -->
00:26:28.480It might facilitate targeted compliance activity.
00:26:28.640 -->
00:26:29.200Yeah, absolutely.
00:26:29.599 -->
00:26:32.880Back to your opening comment about monitoring violations.
00:26:33.039 -->
00:26:37.920It may be some time before a regulator finds out about the failure of monitoring.
00:26:38.000 -->
00:26:44.160And you may be able to find out about that within an hour or two if it's supposed to be turned in on you know at a certain time.
00:26:44.480 -->
00:26:53.279There's some pretty interesting uh studies that have been done about um when monitors are turned off, when monitors are out of commission.
00:26:53.599 -->
00:27:03.119Um, is that just random um, you know, maintenance, which of course is a legitimate thing, or you know, just normal where and tear things happen.
00:27:03.279 -->
00:27:20.160Um, and there's been some interesting studies saying, no, okay, yes, of course, sometimes it is that, uh, but there is a noticeable uptick in uh malfunctioning monitors um when uh there's reason to believe the consequences would be more severe.
00:27:20.400 -->
00:27:26.079Okay, so there's definitely strategic behavior uh that's going on around monitors.
00:27:26.240 -->
00:27:28.160And here's another example of next gen.
00:27:28.640 -->
00:27:30.400Okay, so you don't want that, right?
00:27:30.559 -->
00:27:35.440You don't you don't want people taking the monitors down when the pollution is the worst.
00:27:35.599 -->
00:27:37.759Okay, that that's counterproductive.
00:27:37.920 -->
00:27:52.640Uh and so one strategy that has worked very well to inspire people to actually know you better use the monitors, is a mandatory system that says if your monitor is down, you have to assume your pollution was at its worst.
00:27:52.880 -->
00:28:00.240Okay, so your reporting has to say our pollution is the worst that it's been in any other time period during the time when it's down.
00:28:00.480 -->
00:28:08.720That's a pretty high motivating uh uh factor for companies to say, let's it's gonna be better for us if we leave the monitors functioning.
00:28:08.880 -->
00:28:12.880You know, that's it's that's gonna be better than than assuming worst case.
00:28:13.119 -->
00:28:21.119So that's another way you can structure things so that you you create pressure and incentive towards the the result that you're looking for.
00:28:21.440 -->
00:28:22.720Sounds like a lot of discussion.
00:28:22.799 -->
00:28:25.279There's a lot of perhaps constitutional issues there.
00:28:25.599 -->
00:28:26.000Not really.
00:28:26.319 -->
00:28:28.480You know, permitting and I don't think so.
00:28:28.880 -->
00:28:35.119Well, well, well we'll leave that to the to the uh attorneys and rule writers and and things like that.
00:28:35.279 -->
00:28:45.359But as you know, sometimes uh well, most of the time rules come out and you know we have to wait for the courts to uh decide, and then we have the compliance implementation time frame, things like that.
00:28:45.519 -->
00:28:51.359But what are some other tools that you think we need to consider when we think about next generation compliance?
00:28:51.680 -->
00:29:02.000So here's another tool that's been around for decades already now, uh, but we don't really make uh best use of electronic reporting.
00:29:02.160 -->
00:29:04.720Okay, you'd think in 2025, right?
00:29:05.039 -->
00:29:07.759Um you should have electronic reporting.
00:29:08.000 -->
00:29:14.720Um and elect and that's not the case everywhere, um, and it is not used to best advantage.
00:29:14.880 -->
00:29:26.799So in the water arena, about 10 years ago, we did the um, you know, the water, the acronym for the water discharge NPDS.
00:29:26.960 -->
00:29:50.079So the NPDS e-reporting rule, um, which said basically, okay, starting with the majors, uh, major dischargers, you know, the highest volume uh uh surface water dischargers, and then expanding to other, you know, uh non-major dischargers, stormwater, general permits, other things, um, we're gonna have electronic reporting.
00:29:50.400 -->
00:30:11.359And unlike the past, where it'd been that the reports come in paper to the states, and then the states were supposed to put it in manually into the electronic system with EPA, we're gonna have the um facilities are gonna report electronically directly into the system that EPA and the and the states share.
00:30:11.519 -->
00:30:17.279So everybody will have access to all the data in real time uh simultaneously.
00:30:17.599 -->
00:30:34.880That is, uh I think a huge innovation in and has driven you know significant uh changes in discharge patterns that we've seen, especially in the non-majors world, which has uh didn't receive enough attention in the past because nobody had access to the data.
00:30:35.119 -->
00:30:37.599Um, that's been incredibly powerful.
00:30:37.839 -->
00:30:41.119And I think we need to do the same thing in drinking water.
00:30:41.359 -->
00:30:45.599Drinking water still operates under the models from the 1970s.
00:30:45.680 -->
00:30:47.759I mean, it's not even your grandfather's system.
00:30:47.839 -->
00:30:49.599That's like before that.
00:30:50.240 -->
00:31:05.839You know, and this is one of the reasons why um EPA doesn't have a clue at the national level what's really happening on the ground, because all the information comes from states and study after study, repeated, repeated, you know, years and years of studies show that EP the states are not reporting them.
00:31:06.160 -->
00:31:08.480So at the federal level, we don't we don't really know.
00:31:08.640 -->
00:31:12.880So let's, you know, come on, it's 2025, you know, it's electronic era.
00:31:13.599 -->
00:31:16.240Let's the systems have their data electronically.
00:31:16.319 -->
00:31:27.440Let's have them report it, you know, it's easy for them, easy for everybody, everyone has access, greater transparency is so much more powerful as a system for protecting people than we have.
00:31:28.000 -->
00:31:32.240We have the we have the e DMRs, the discharge monitoring reports.
00:31:32.480 -->
00:31:37.039Um we can think about the monthly reports of operation.
00:31:37.279 -->
00:32:05.519And then on the drinking water side, um, dare I say that the annual uh CCRs, uh uh the the uh you know the the contamination reports that water utilities have to put out for certain systems that they operate, we could we could even see that changing over time, where instead of maybe annually, those could be more regularly reported on dashboards or provided, you know, information could be provided directly um to EPA.
00:32:05.680 -->
00:32:07.759Um I mean, they see that anyway.
00:32:07.839 -->
00:32:15.119Um but even more to the point than than the consumer confidence reports, which are important, you know, that's that's a vital thing.
00:32:15.279 -->
00:32:21.680The more important thing is how is the drinking water system doing on compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act?
00:32:21.839 -->
00:32:24.240Like are uh, you know, what's happening?
00:32:24.400 -->
00:32:26.160Um is the water clean?
00:32:26.319 -->
00:32:30.000Um that's that in in more close to real time.
00:32:30.400 -->
00:32:37.039So having that information um electronically and available to everyone would be incredibly powerful.
00:32:37.279 -->
00:32:38.480We don't have that today.
00:32:38.880 -->
00:32:51.599Well, it's it that's kind of where I was going in that I've had experience with this where once a year customers get these scary-looking reports that are very bureaucratic and they get all worried and they call in and you know, is everything okay?
00:32:51.759 -->
00:32:55.599I saw something here, I saw something there, and they're not sure what to do.
00:32:55.759 -->
00:33:00.079Um, and by the time they may get it, the the compliance issue has been resolved.
00:33:00.240 -->
00:33:17.119But perhaps that is something for you know water leaders to address going forward is how do we, as you put it, maybe electrify a lot of these things and digitize them and do so for the benefit not just of of you know the EPA or the states and the utility, but also customers.
00:33:17.279 -->
00:33:32.319Is that yeah, you know, is that well, so you may be interested to know that that you know, that paper used to be paper mailed once a year consumer confidence report to the um uh users, the consumers of the of the drinking water.
00:33:32.799 -->
00:33:35.359Incredibly powerful in driving compliance.
00:33:35.599 -->
00:33:36.799Incredibly powerful.
00:33:37.039 -->
00:33:40.799The drinking water system didn't want to get those phone calls.
00:33:41.039 -->
00:33:50.480Um and and just the fact that they had to do send out that annual report may caused a dramatic increase in compliance with the standards.
00:33:50.640 -->
00:33:51.200Yeah.
00:33:51.519 -->
00:34:08.480So, you know, it's there's all different ways of thinking about um these problems uh and setting up the incentives out the so that the entities that are supposed to comply um are motivated and incentivized uh to do what the rule is hoping they will do.
00:34:08.880 -->
00:34:21.840I s I see your theme of transparency being woven throughout some of these things, and that's you would perhaps argue that transparency will continue to be a significant theme over the next 20 years when it comes to next generation compliance.
00:34:22.400 -->
00:34:22.480Okay.
00:34:22.800 -->
00:34:30.159And and the monitoring plus electronic reporting is a natural fit with transparency.
00:34:30.239 -->
00:34:33.599Um, that's what makes transparency you know viable.
00:34:33.920 -->
00:34:43.599Um, that you can you have all that data available and you can make it available in understandable ways to the public.
00:34:43.760 -->
00:34:49.920There is value to just sort of putting out raw data that you know people who are knowledgeable can understand it and make use of it.
00:34:50.000 -->
00:34:57.760But as to your point about how you know consumers are drinking water, for example, they don't want to know how many parts per billion or whatever you found.
00:34:57.840 -->
00:35:00.079Uh they want to know is my drinking water safe?
00:35:00.239 -->
00:35:00.480Right.
00:35:00.719 -->
00:35:08.239And and it's important that transparency efforts uh uh communicate at the level that the recipient of that information can understand.
00:35:08.559 -->
00:35:08.800Right.
00:35:08.880 -->
00:35:11.760Not everybody that gets that report is a is a PhD chemist.
00:35:12.000 -->
00:35:12.719Hopefully not.
00:35:13.440 -->
00:35:16.159You know, you know, they they want kind of a red, yellow, green.
00:35:16.320 -->
00:35:17.599You know, am I good to am I good?
00:35:17.679 -->
00:35:18.559Am I good to drink it?
00:35:18.719 -->
00:35:22.239Good to uh, you know, bathe in it or water my lawn with it?
00:35:22.320 -->
00:35:23.440What you know, am I good?
00:35:23.519 -->
00:35:23.760Yeah.
00:35:23.920 -->
00:35:25.360Let me let me flip this.
00:35:25.519 -->
00:35:27.840Let's say I'm a water utility and I'm in trouble.
00:35:28.000 -->
00:35:33.360I get a I get a notice of violation from uh from assistant administrator Cynthia Giles.
00:35:33.440 -->
00:35:33.920That's not happening.
00:35:34.239 -->
00:35:35.760I'm in trouble, you know.
00:35:37.679 -->
00:35:52.639And and uh I I I come in and I talk about what's wrong and I work out a consent decree with you, and and there's a penalty involved, a civil penalty, but I want to offset that civil penalty with a supplemental environmental project.
00:35:52.880 -->
00:36:02.639Now, on the enforcement side, what do you see happening uh in the world of water with next generation in enforcement?
00:36:02.880 -->
00:36:11.039Could I do things with some of these next generation ideas and do so through a SEP or some other enforcement tool?
00:36:11.119 -->
00:36:12.079What are your thoughts on that?
00:36:12.320 -->
00:36:56.719Well, I would say it was incredibly common during the time that I was in the enforcement office, incredibly common that a company who was revealed to be in significant violation of you know important uh environmental standards that were threatening people's health or actually causing uh health harms, is unfortunately too often happened, to for them to, once they've been dragged to the table uh by enforcement action, and it's true at the state level as well as at the federal level, um, have an interest in resolving their problem um and and doing something that may prevent that problem from recurring in the future.
00:36:56.960 -->
00:37:03.199So they they've gotten the message that they need to have a system that's gonna work within their own entity.
00:37:03.440 -->
00:37:18.480And I have I have observed many, many companies um willing to try something new, uh, you know, coming forward and saying, I'm willing to try that new monitoring technology that people's talking about, see if it really works in the field.
00:37:18.639 -->
00:37:30.159Um, or maybe I'm gonna do a new transparency method for this community where I'm gonna provide a lot more data than they're used to getting and, you know, uh make it easy for them to see uh what we're doing.
00:37:30.239 -->
00:37:40.880Or, you know, there's or maybe I'm gonna uh try to offset the uh the uh violating pollution that I had in the past by trying this brand new thing that hasn't been tried before.
00:37:41.119 -->
00:37:47.840So there's a lot of things that could excuse me, happen in uh in the context of enforcement resolution.
00:37:48.079 -->
00:37:58.000It's not just through SEPS, although SEPS is, you know, one way, uh there's many other ways uh for for companies that want to step to the plate uh to do that.
00:37:58.239 -->
00:37:58.639Yeah.
00:37:58.800 -->
00:38:01.519And you know, injunctive relief and things like that.
00:38:01.599 -->
00:38:12.800And and and I I just think that uh hopefully utilities, uh, you know, people in the world of water are not in trouble, that they are doing their level best to be in compliance.
00:38:12.960 -->
00:38:29.599But it seems to me that um if you are in trouble, that there will still be the opportunity in the agreements, you know, agreed orders, consent decrees, things like that, for the application of your ideas from the next generation compliance perspective.
00:38:29.679 -->
00:38:37.679That, you know, hey, I'd love to, I'm making this up, but hey, uh, as part of this, I'd like to offset the penalty by buying five USGS stream monitors, right?
00:38:37.840 -->
00:38:40.480And put them out and about wherever USG wants them.
00:38:40.559 -->
00:38:47.920Or I'm gonna buy some advanced analytical equipment, put it at my discharge, or put it upstream or wherever that may be.
00:38:48.159 -->
00:38:57.039And and those things, uh, and most people don't know about the supplemental environmental projects policy, but it's a policy that's been around for for what two decades or more.
00:38:57.280 -->
00:39:00.559And um, it's it's a good policy, and I hope that it stays there.
00:39:00.719 -->
00:39:01.760That's my opinion.
00:39:01.920 -->
00:39:20.079But um I don't see that changing in the future, but it it I think it allows the innovations that you and I are talking about to at least one way to allow these innovations to be facilitated into the future um by doing things you're not necessarily required to do by law and investing in them and and offsetting a penalty.
00:39:20.159 -->
00:39:26.960So and many times what what um a very powerful motivator is the companies discover these save money.
00:39:27.119 -->
00:39:28.800Um, you know, that's a win-win.
00:39:28.880 -->
00:39:30.960You can get a better performance and save money.
00:39:31.119 -->
00:39:31.920Uh great.
00:39:32.079 -->
00:39:34.159Let's let's pursue that.
00:39:34.559 -->
00:39:59.360Can I I just want to add one thing that it's that um uh one of the challenges of what's gonna happen in the future in the water arena, um and how how does Next Gen fit into that um is that the the whole system uh that is part of this regulatory uh structure is going to be coming.
00:40:00.239 -->
00:40:02.719Much more uh variable.
00:40:02.960 -->
00:40:06.480So climate change is gonna make all these problems worse.
00:40:06.639 -->
00:40:12.719So the stormwater runoff is gonna be worse, uh, you know, increasing pollution sediments and surface water.
00:40:12.880 -->
00:40:14.320There's gonna be more droughts.
00:40:14.480 -->
00:40:31.039Uh that leads to, you know, contamination concentration of surface water, uh, harmful algal blooms, you know, during hot weather, uh, and storm damage to water infrastructure, you know, a different type of physical uh risk to that infrastructure.
00:40:31.280 -->
00:40:35.760So that implicates the Corps of Engineers and FEMA and all these other agencies.
00:40:36.320 -->
00:40:42.480So the point being that the rules are not delivering today what they were intended to achieve.
00:40:42.639 -->
00:40:46.159And in the future, this situation is gonna be much more dynamic.
00:40:46.320 -->
00:40:46.559Okay.
00:40:46.800 -->
00:40:53.119It's not gonna be the stable situation that was envisioned in the 70s when these systems were established.
00:40:53.199 -->
00:40:55.119Okay, it's it's not gonna be like that.
00:40:55.440 -->
00:41:06.400So it is gonna we really need to, and I think next gen actually fits very well with this because the basic concept of next gen is embrace innovation, okay?
00:41:06.639 -->
00:41:20.800Shift from rigid systems where everyone's you know fighting over turf and power, uh, shift away from the 1970s, you know, and understand that we're gonna have to be much more adaptive.
00:41:21.119 -->
00:41:31.519Uh so the rules are gonna need to be uh lead to better results in a situation that is going to be very uh dynamic.
00:41:31.679 -->
00:41:39.039And and so that's gonna require, you know, obviously we need the monitoring, monitoring reporting, and all those kinds of things.
00:41:39.360 -->
00:41:43.519Um, and and obviously, I hope this is obvious.
00:41:43.679 -->
00:41:50.079Um we have to stop with the assumption that people are gonna do things just because we write it down in a rule, okay?
00:41:50.239 -->
00:41:51.440That is that is wrong.
00:41:51.599 -->
00:41:53.920Okay, that that doesn't it doesn't work like that.
00:41:54.079 -->
00:41:57.119Um we we need to design for the system we want.
00:41:57.679 -->
00:42:04.079Um and the other thing I would say that relates to this is is we need to reenvision federalism.
00:42:04.239 -->
00:42:12.000So the federal-state relationship, which is which is we're still stuck in the 70s uh model for that.
00:42:12.159 -->
00:42:19.039Uh, you know, this idea that states have a chokehold on the data that everybody needs to figure out where the biggest problems are with the two.
00:42:19.440 -->
00:42:21.280Okay, so that's a problem.
00:42:21.599 -->
00:42:28.320At the same time, EPA needs to loosen the reins on on you know compliance innovation at the state level.
00:42:28.719 -->
00:42:34.480Uh states as laboratories of innovation is more uh necessary now than ever.
00:42:34.880 -->
00:42:43.119Uh so states are closest to these problems and have the most capacity to figure out creative ways to try to address it.
00:42:43.280 -->
00:42:50.480And it'll be much easier for EPA to loosen those reins when the data is there to know what's happening.
00:42:50.559 -->
00:42:54.159So we're we're not taking a chance that, oh no, we're making everything a lot worse.
00:42:54.239 -->
00:42:55.519Oh no, no, who knew?
00:42:55.679 -->
00:42:55.840Yeah.
00:42:56.000 -->
00:43:02.960That we, if we can know in real time how's it going, and it and it looks like this new idea is okay, that wait, we, oh, wait, wait, wait.
00:43:03.119 -->
00:43:12.960Uh, you know, that seems like it's having a bad impact, then that allows EPA to be much more uh flexible and to embrace state innovation, which I I think both of those things.
00:43:13.119 -->
00:43:20.880States have to give up, you know, loosen control over the data, and it EPA needs to uh loosen the reins on state innovation.
00:43:21.199 -->
00:43:21.440Yeah.
00:43:21.599 -->
00:43:42.239Your your your comments just took me back in in the Wayback Machine uh because it reminded me uh of uh many people may not remember this, but Vice President Al Gore and Project XL and his efforts to try to reinvent this um environmental regulatory um relationship in part between the feds and the states.
00:43:42.400 -->
00:43:49.679And you know that that I just remember that he was looking for innovations, and you know, here we are today, you know, 25 years later.
00:43:49.840 -->
00:43:51.679Um that program didn't work.
00:43:51.920 -->
00:43:57.119Okay, so the data then you know it's but but it was He had some good I remember good ideas.
00:43:57.679 -->
00:44:04.639The spirit was good to say, what what can we try that's different um that could improve the outcomes?
00:44:04.719 -->
00:44:08.239Uh and you know that that attitude is where we need to be.
00:44:08.480 -->
00:44:08.960Yeah.
00:44:09.199 -->
00:44:11.440I uh I do remember those conversations.
00:44:11.519 -->
00:44:16.400I remember being on the receiving end of some of those where I'm scratching my head saying, why won't they let us try this?
00:44:16.559 -->
00:44:17.760Why won't they let us do this?
00:44:17.920 -->
00:44:18.239Right.
00:44:18.400 -->
00:44:19.760So your point is well taken.
00:44:20.000 -->
00:44:26.000When we look out 20 years, and what what scenario do you think is most likely?
00:44:26.239 -->
00:44:34.320When you think out the next 20 years about next generation compliance for for for water and wastewater utilities, are are you a are you a cautious optimist?
00:44:34.480 -->
00:44:41.920Is this gonna be a, or maybe it's gonna be transformative, or maybe it's business as usual, or even maybe it just falls apart.
00:44:42.000 -->
00:44:43.119It's a collapse scenario.
00:44:43.199 -->
00:44:48.480What do you think, if you put on your foresight hat, what do you think it's gonna look like in 20 years?
00:44:48.880 -->
00:44:54.159I think that we will uh necessity is the the parent of invention.
00:44:54.239 -->
00:44:57.599Uh and I think that's there's a lot to be said for that.
00:44:57.840 -->
00:45:05.519And I think that the disruptive effects of climate change on, I mean, where it lands first is water.
00:45:05.679 -->
00:45:09.519Uh, you know, those are the places we're gonna be seeing it the most.
00:45:10.159 -->
00:45:28.079And I think that that it is gonna become completely obvious to everyone that the rigid, uh, tightly controlled, you know, data obscuring system that we that we live under today is not working, not working for anyone.
00:45:28.480 -->
00:45:43.679And uh that I think is gonna push everyone that we need to break away uh from the the frankly boring 50-year debates uh about uh what we should be doing in the compliance arena and cause people to look around.
00:45:43.840 -->
00:45:44.960Well, what can we do?
00:45:45.199 -->
00:45:50.800And and I'm hopeful that some of these ideas in next gen will be part of the well, what can we do?
00:45:50.880 -->
00:45:51.760We know what to do.
00:45:51.920 -->
00:45:53.519Okay, here's here's the tools.
00:45:53.679 -->
00:45:55.039We know what to do.
00:45:55.199 -->
00:45:59.199Uh we just have to have the will um to do it.
00:45:59.519 -->
00:46:33.039And and I'm I'm hopeful that we can the uh uh public health protection programs of the future uh will, if they embrace these kinds of ideas, will lead to a much better compliance picture on the ground, um, such that the the enforcement people uh can focus their efforts not on routine, not trying to be the baseline insurers of you know routine compliance, that the rule will do that by itself.
00:46:33.280 -->
00:47:11.599Uh and what the enforcement people can focus on is the worst violators, like you know, the criminal violators, you know, which there's gonna always be, I'm sorry to tell you, um the highest impact uh problems, the you know, problem-focused uh enforcement um and using enforcement as we were just talking about uh to explore innovations, you know, like seeing whether once you discover that there's a problem, seeing whether you can turn that negative, you know, there's been harm to the environment, harm to the community, uh, see whether you turn that negative into a solution for the future uh with willing partners.
00:47:11.760 -->
00:47:21.039And so I'm hopeful uh sometimes, you know, bad news like the impacts of climate change can lead to positive uh innovation.
00:47:21.280 -->
00:47:21.519Yeah.
00:47:21.760 -->
00:47:35.599So I I hear your cautious optimism that in 20 years, whether you know it is a it continues to be an ethical shift, a technological innovation shift, and certainly looking at the things that are around us.
00:47:35.920 -->
00:47:42.559We have these hurricanes or you know, the even these these unique flooding events like we had in Texas that wipes out a camp.
00:47:42.719 -->
00:47:57.280And are we prepared, if I hear you correctly, to engage these activities, these challenges, these events in the world of water with the current compliance and enforcement framework that we've been living under for the last 50 years?
00:47:57.440 -->
00:48:05.920And and how are we, and there's a lot of we in this, a lot of different actors, how are we going to respond to that and transform it?
00:48:06.079 -->
00:48:17.920So when we're here talking about in 20 years, we can look back and say we've risen to the occasion and we've transformed the system of compliance and enforcement and improved how it performs in the world of water.
00:48:18.239 -->
00:48:18.800Wouldn't that be great?
00:48:20.719 -->
00:48:21.119Yes.
00:48:22.159 -->
00:48:43.039Much to be I don't want to be a uh, you know, Matt's utopia, but that's I I I I uh I'm trying to harness your cautious optimism that there are people that see these aspects and will be here in 20 years trying to look back and and say, wow, um look what look what we have all done together to um improve the world of water.
00:48:43.199 -->
00:48:45.920So well the challenges are are profound.
00:48:46.079 -->
00:48:52.400So the the changes that are going to be coming with climate change for water and drink water are are profound.
00:48:52.559 -->
00:48:59.519And I'm hopeful that we that will be the necessary motivator uh to push people to embrace innovation.
00:48:59.760 -->
00:49:00.960There's all kinds of innovation.
00:49:01.039 -->
00:49:03.119There's a lot of different directions this could go.
00:49:03.280 -->
00:49:06.559Uh, but once people accept, yep, that's what we have to do.
00:49:06.719 -->
00:49:09.039Now let's talk about how we're gonna do it.
00:49:09.199 -->
00:49:11.360Uh that's the conversation we should be having.
00:49:11.599 -->
00:49:12.000Yeah.
00:49:12.239 -->
00:49:13.199It's a driver.
00:49:13.360 -->
00:49:14.159Yeah, for sure.
00:49:14.400 -->
00:49:19.760Well, Cynthia, I want to thank you for being an extremely thoughtful guest today on the Water Foresight Podcast.
00:49:19.840 -->
00:49:21.440Uh, we've had a great conversation.
00:49:21.599 -->
00:49:29.679I mean, we could talk for a couple more hours on uh compliance and enforcement and and uh uh all the memories that uh you and I can share.
00:49:30.000 -->
00:49:35.039Tell people where they can get a hold of you or where they can get your book uh if they want to learn more.
00:49:35.280 -->
00:49:37.119Uh well, thank you for that opportunity.
00:49:37.280 -->
00:49:41.039So the book is available free, free to download.
00:49:41.199 -->
00:49:47.599Um just go to nextgencompliance.org and the book is there uh for free.
00:49:48.000 -->
00:49:48.639Wonderful.
00:49:48.880 -->
00:49:49.360Wonderful.
00:49:49.440 -->
00:49:50.400And they can find you there.
00:49:50.559 -->
00:50:03.199And yep, if they have questions about what's the difference between a HPV and a SNCC, uh we can certainly uh we won't go over to Rick and talk about schmooze, but uh that'll be that'll be another another podcast.
00:50:03.360 -->
00:50:16.559But uh Cynthia, it's been a real, a real pleasure to talk to you and and I look forward to having uh further conversations with you in the future about what uh compliance and enforcement looks like for the world of water over the next uh 10, 20, and 50 years.
00:50:16.639 -->
00:50:18.559And so thank you for challenging us today.
00:50:18.719 -->
00:50:22.480And uh thank you again for being a guest on the Water Foresight Podcast.
00:50:22.719 -->
00:50:23.360Thank you, Matt.
00:50:23.599 -->
00:50:25.199All right, and we thank you, the listener.
00:50:25.360 -->
00:50:29.760Have a great day, and we'll see you on the next episode of the Water Foresight Podcast.
00:50:30.320 -->
00:50:34.719Thank you for listening to the Water Foresight Podcast, powered by the Aqualaris Group.
00:50:34.880 -->
00:50:41.599For more information, please visit us at aqualars.com or follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter.
00:50:42.239 -->
00:50:43.440Aqualaris.
