Water Crisis Workshop

Water
Ideation Workshop
Event Report
2015.02.02

HOK Water Workshop
2
Contents
Preface - Conversation with Russ..........................................................................................................3
Event Summary.............................................................................................................................................5
Agenda for the Day......................................................................................................................................6
Event Layout..................................................................................................................................................7
Event Process.............................................................................................................................................10
Water Workshop Observations.............................................................................................................11
Report Out...................................................................................................................................................13
Table 1...........................................................................................................................................................14
Table 2...........................................................................................................................................................17
Table 3...........................................................................................................................................................21
Table 4...........................................................................................................................................................24
Post Script...................................................................................................................................................28
Plus / Delta..................................................................................................................................................30
Create the Nexus: Our Mission Statement.....................................................................................32
Acknowledgments.....................................................................................................................................32
Distinguished Guests.............................................................................................................................33
Water Workshop Information Package
Event Proceedings Output - Record Documents
Appendices

HOK Water Workshop
3
Preface - Conversation with Russ
Why was the Nexus group formed?
This is truly an extraordinary time to be living and working in the Bay Area. We are at the center of a community
of business, academic and government enterprises that are driving profound changes in the way we live. This
is a historically important movement enabled by advances in technology, communication, and the creation of
wealth.
This confluence of wealth and technology is complemented by a deeper appreciation of our global
interdependence economically, environmentally, politically and educationally. The Bay Area is an
interconnected brain trust that is a wellspring for new ideas and ways of looking at the world. We understand
that really creative outcomes occur at the intersections between different disciplines, cultures, and
generations. HOK strongly supports bringing this very broad and diverse approach to design thinking. It’s not
just what’s happening between the four walls at our firm. We want to draw in the global brain trust, and look
for ways to achieve new ground to build a better future together.
Why focus on water?
California is in the middle of a critical water shortage, of course, but managing this precious resource
appropriately is really a major global issue. We have the technological ability to solve this problem, but
not necessarily alignment on the best way to use those technologies or fund implementation. Policies and
behaviors need to change too, but there is a combination of inertia and resistance that is difficult to overcome.
Diamonds are formed under pressure. Being threatened with not having enough of the fresh water essential
to our survival creates pressure! We are hoping to help apply that pressure to enable the social, political and
behavioral transformations necessary for sustainable management of this precious resource. Ten years ago
the social awareness and will to alter our patterns and beliefs just weren’t there. Right now we’re seeing all
that shifting - the technological and financial capabilities are converging with an awakened public, ready to
tackle this crisis. At HOK, we believe that we can be a catalyst for change. We can bring together the experts
and the community to really focus on this challenge. We want to help chart the course to a sustainable water
future both locally and globally.

HOK Water Workshop
4
Event Leader
Russ Drinker
HOK
Management Principal
H. Russell (Russ) Drinker is the Managing Director of the San Francisco office
and brings over 30 years of experience in architecture and planning. He provides
leadership on a broad range of large-scale, innovative, and technically challenging
projects with an emphasis on sustainable design. His portfolio is notable for its
globally recognized medical sciences, research and academic campuses, including
the Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise (CREATE)
project for the National Research Foundation in Singapore; the Princess Noura
bint Abdulrahman University, a new 32 million square foot campus with a 300 bed
hospital for 40,000 full-time female students, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; as well as
projects throughout the University of California system and Stanford University.
Russ has also led Master Planning projects for Chevron; United States Embassies
in Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, and Damascus; and a new Medical Sciences
campus for King Saud University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
How did you start down this road?
I read multiple articles in the national press about the water crisis in California – including stories about entire
communities threatened with extinction from the lack of potable water. The articles focused on drilling new
wells or piping water around, or the need for conservation, but completely ignored the potential of recycling
waste water and it really made me mad! Recycling is one of the most fundamental, and most overlooked,
methods we have to solve the global water crisis. To fail to understand such an important aspect of this
precious resource was just unacceptable. We want to help put a spotlight on recycling and change the story
being written.

HOK Water Workshop
5
Changing perceptions about water.
On November 21st, HOK Nexus sponsored a water
workshop to begin a conversation about the current
state of our water infrastructure and supply in Cali-
fornia. Following a series of forums focusing on as-
pects of the water crisis, the workshop was the first
step in changing the perception of California’s water
sector at our practice and beyond.
What happened?
The water workshop was conceived as a cross-disci-
plinary one-day workshop tackling water scarcity in
California. The goal of the event was to generate ac-
tionable ideas for small communities seeking a more
resilient water supply. Field-leading experts of sci-
entific research, art, policy, engineering, and venture
capital from public, private, non-profit, governmen-
tal, and academic institutions gathered in one room,
building on both common ground and differences.
After a general group discussion framing the context
of the problem, attendees broke off into four groups
to problem-solve the water crisis for two theoreti-
cal small California towns - one in a riparian valley
and one on the coast. The teams developed diverse
responses to the complex problem, from practical
decision charts to new conceptual models. Of par-
ticular interest was the reclamation and advance
treatment of wastewater as a reliable source of
supply, a proven strategy where implementation is
currently challenged by public misconceptions and
a widespread lack of standards and policies. Select
ideas are being refined, with the intent that they will
be published, and, hopefully, implemented, copied
and scaled.
Event Summary
Goals of the event
There were two primary goals for the water
workshop. The first was to create a “water nexus”: to
bring together a wide ranging panel of experts from
the water sector – from policy and funding to social
and technical aspects of the field, and kick-start a
new conversation regarding the water crisis.
The second was to envision potential solutions for
our water supply and infrastructure systems in Cal-
ifornia, with a focus on small towns. This event was
not seen as an end in itself, but rather the beginning
of a conversation regarding our water future and how
to make our water systems more resilient. Through
this “water nexus”, we hope to focus diverse exper-
tise on a complex problem, one that will influence
the way we build in an increasingly resource-scarce
world.
As a continuation of the water conversation, HOK
San Francisco is planning a public open house to
take place this spring. This event will feature the
findings from the workshop and showcase innova-
tive projects and programs from a curated group
of organizations that are providing solutions to dif-
ferent components of the water problem, including
technical, policy, social, and funding.
We believe that truly creative outcomes occur at the
intersections between differing disciplines, cultures,
and generations. Through this event and similar
events in the future, we intend to draw in the global
brain trust, and look for ways to achieve new ground
to build a better future together.

HOK Water Workshop
6
Agenda for the Day
AM
PM
8:30
12:00
1:00
5:00
Brainstorming
Please quickly introduce yourself – Name, Organization/Employer
LUNCH
BREAK
9:30
Introduction
Brainstorming Report Out (Table to Table)
Develop an Action Plan and Report Out
What are the Big Ideas addressing the challenge!
Is there a ‘mind map’ that links all of your ideas?
Can you use lists, bullets, diagrams to convey your idea?
Select a Spokesperson to report out to your nearby table group
Present 2-3 Ideas from your Brainstorming work (3 minutes each idea)
Ask the nearby table group to rank or comment on your ideas
Share the feedback with your ‘home base’ table and select your preferred ideas to go forward
Forward your Hypothesis Statement into an Action Plan
Report out on your Action Plan to include: Required inputs
Required stakeholders / participants
Required timeline
Anticipated outcomes / results
Nominate a spokes-person and report out to the larger room audience (10 minute presentation)
Advance your Idea and Report Out
Select a TWO ideas to move forward
Write a ‘Statement of Work’ or ‘Hypothesis Statement’ about your idea
Identify the ‘lenses’ that apply: Social, Financial, Policy, Technology
Test the idea as: Scale-able, Profitable, Transferable, Implementable, etc.
Refine your ‘Statement’ to present to others
Nominate a spokes-person and report out to the larger room audience (4-5 minutes for each)

HOK Water Workshop
7
Event Layout
Head Moderator
Steve Morton
HOK
Regional Leader of Planning
Event Leader
HOK
Russ Drinker
projector screen / pin-up spaceprojector screen / pin-up space
projectorscreen/pin-upspace
projectorscreen/pin-upspace
Bluescape Screen
IT / scribe
station
refreshments/beverages
TABLE 1 TABLE 2
TABLE 3 TABLE 4
TM
S
S
HM
TM
S
S
S
S
S
S
TM
TM
EL
EL
HM
TM
S
Event Leader
Event Organization
Head Moderator
Team Moderator
Scribes
Experts / Team Members
S

HOK Water Workshop
8
Table 1 Table 2
Josiah Cain
Sherwood
Design Engineers
Director of Innovation
Team Moderator
AJ Wacaser
Biomimicry Network
Permaculturalist
Team Members
Kim Schneider
Ecoconsult
Associate
Michael Flynn
NASA Ames
Research Center
Leader of Research and
Development Technology
Newsha Ajami
Stanford University
ReNUWIt
Director of
Urban Water Policy
Sonia Diermayer
Sierra Club
Co-Chair,
Water Committee
FICTILIS
Graduate Student at
UCSC Digital Arts &
New Media Program
Andrea Steves
Team Moderator
Brian Jencek
HOK
Reg Design Ldr of
Planning & Landscape
Chris Allen
Co-Founder
Biomimicry Network
Justin Malan
CA Conference Directors
of Environmental Health
Executive Director
Ken Kortkamp
SFPUC
Management
Margot Kenney
Sherwood
Design Engineers
Marketing and BD
Patricia Gonzales
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering
Stanford University
Graduate Student
FICTILIS
Graduate Student at
UCSC Digital Arts &
New Media Program
Tim Furstnau
Scott Bryan
Imagine H2O
Team Members

HOK Water Workshop
9
Table 4Table 3
Team Moderator
Lynn Filar
HOK
Technical Principal
Guy Carpenter
Carollo Engineers
Vice President
Paula Kehoe
SF Public Utilities
Commission
Water Resource Mgmt
Prentiss Darden
Engineer
Sherwood
Design Engineers
Rowan
Roderick-Jones
Water Associate
Jennifer Parker
UCSC Art Department
Chair and Founding
Director of OpenLab
Tracy Quinn
Natural Resources
Defense Council
Policy Analyst, Water
Efficiency Team
ARUP
Marc Arnold
HOK
Director of Operations
Team Moderator
Bruce Wolfe
SF Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board
Executive Officer
Dominique Gomez
WaterSmart Software
Director of Market
Development
David Sedlak
ReNUWIt / Water 4.0
Co-Director of
Berkeley Water Center
Elizabeth
Dougherty
Wholly H2O
Founder and CEO
Jennifer Clary
Cleanwater Action
Program
Central Valley Program
Director
Stephen Burges
ARUP
Hydrology Leader
Team Members Team Members

HOK Water Workshop
10
Event Process

HOK Water Workshop
11
Water Workshop Observations
Infrastructure Status Quo
The status quo of our water infrastructure is becom-
ing inadequate. To meet both increased demands of
growing populations and decreased supply of pota-
ble water will require modifications at many scales
from individual to local to regional to federal. Our
existing infrastructure will be difficult and extremely
expensive to reconfigure.
Social Equity
Everyone uses water, but not all water users are
equally represented in conversations regarding wa-
ter systems.
Market Failure
The true value and cost of water are not currently
represented in our water infrastructure systems
pricing – supply or waste. This is the case through-
out all the scales of water use: individual, district,
regional and federal.
The water / energy nexus is precipitating many of our
water issues. Much of our energy expenditure in-
volves moving and treating water –likewise much of
our water is used to produce energy. A clear under-
standing of the interrelationship of these systems is
an essential element part of any discussion about
change in these vital systems.
The following ideas, concepts and observations have been collected from research leading up to and discus-
sion that occurred during our recent workshop on November 21st, 2014. They frame broad parameters for,
and define the current water landscape that our four teams wrestled with during the workshop.
Centralized / Decentralized Systems
A central issue with respect to redefining/ recon-
structing our existing water infrastructure revolves
around the various strengths and weaknesses of
centralized versus decentralized systems. The cur-
rent systems are generally centralized, but new de-
centralized systems are receiving more and more
interest.
The Three Waters
Understanding the relationships, both integration
and non-integration of the three largest spheres of
our water – supply, storm-water and wastewater is
central to any water system innovation. Currently
these three sectors operate individually and their
goals are not in alignment. They are not integrated
into an overall understanding of a complete water
cycle system.
Diverse Interests
Representatives for the diverse aspects of the wa-
ter industry: users, advocates, entrepreneurs and
professionals have very different goals and perspec-
tives that reflect the overall complexity of the dis-
course.

HOK Water Workshop
12
The Geography of Water
Our current water infrastructure system is generally
not based upon geographical watershed areas. This
has set up overlapping and competing concerns.
Any realignment of this configuration will also have a
set of overlapping and competing concerns.
Leaky Pipes
Operations and maintenance are critical pieces of
our overall water structure that are not currently in-
corporated into our water system and its associated
costs. Water waste, through inefficiencies and leak-
age, is a systemic problem that is difficult to recog-
nize, fund and ultimately to fix.
Let the Quality of the Water
Meet the Need
Currently water is viewed as either clean (potable) or
dirty (non-potable) but the reality is more complex.
Not all of our uses require potable water. A regula-
tory redefinition of the requirements for particular
uses may be a beneficial step towards a use driven
water system.
Unanticipated consequences of our actions with re-
spect to water have been and continue to be a cen-
tral issue in any conversation regarding innovation of
our water systems.

HOK Water Workshop
13
Report Out
Executive Summary
The promise of bringing together disparate
viewpoints on a difficult topic lies in the potential for
non-obvious solutions that are “greater than the sum
of the parts”. Yet it is impossible to generate the best
possible synthesis of a diverse group of thinkers in
a single day, and it is extremely difficult for a single
table of people with different viewpoints to establish
a common ground of terms,values and goals. Human
dynamics can’t be foreseen in advance, and can help
or hinder a common goal. With a shared belief in the
promise of synergy, and despite the challenges of
working across disciplines, 31 highly experienced
professionals from a rich variety of backgrounds
came together with the express purpose of working
with others with skill sets very different from their
own. Our goals were no less than to transform the
public narrative on the wicked problem of water
scarcity and to come up with creative solutions that
could be enacted by small California towns.
The group was divided amongst four tables, with an
eye to maintaining a full cross section of the larger
group’s diversity at each table. Each table team
spent the full day together, alternating between a
tight inward focus and dialoguewith the largergroup.
The way that each table filled in the blanks of the
problem statement, how they worked, and what they
produced, very quickly became unique expressions
of the collection of people at each table. Starting
with a common set of informational materials and
media to work with, the end of the work day revealed
four very distinct proposals in response to the water
scarcity problem faced by small California towns,
and two “model” towns in particular.
While the wicked problem was not solved this one
day, the overarching frameworks and approaches
formulated by the groups could be valuable for
small town staff and politicians to start to come to
terms with the need to provide clean, reliable water
supplies, especially in times of drought. Not a small
benefit of the day’s work was the new perspective
that many people from different disciplines are
engaging this problem--and working towards a
common goal of a resilient, sustainable water future.

HOK Water Workshop
14
Table 1
Moderator
Josiah Cain, Sherwood Design Engineers
Scribes
Garam Hann, HOK
Gabrielle Saponara, HOK
Team Members
Newsha Ajami, ReNEUWIt
Michael Flynn, NASA Ames Research Center
Kim Schneider, Ecoconsult
Sonia Diermayer, Sierra Club
Andrea Steves, FICTILIS/UCSC
AJ Wacaser, Biomimicry Network
Approach/Typology:
Shift the Cultural Value of Water

HOK Water Workshop
15
Brain Storming
Our moderator, Josiah Cain (Sherwood Engineers)
opened up conversation at Table 1 by inviting each
participant to give an introduction including their
interest and expertise in water. It was immediately
clear that our table had a quite diverse set of opinions
regarding solutions to our water crisis – many on
divergent ends with respect to the social, technolical,
funding and policy lenses that we were exploring.
The role of economic markets was central to most
of our discussion, with solutions ranging from
decentralized systems to centralized authorities.
The single agreement around the table: the status
quo is not working, and that water resources are
not appropriately valued with respect to other
commodities and resources. This premise that water
is a fundamentally undervalued resource drove most
of our discussion through the day.
Defining the Problem
Our thesis then became: If we were to help our small
town re-value water relative to other resources - how
would this impact the water sustainability of the
town? This thesis led to multiple possible scenarios.
A representative scenario was: A multi-faceted
effort to Shift the Cultural Value of water would be
pursued at all levels of community involvement with
particular interest in neighborhood participation. As
public perception of the value of the resource was
increased, a corresponding rise in water rates might
arise. This in turn would lead to an increased demand
for new / revised water systems and services –
creating a new configuration for the water market.

HOK Water Workshop
16
This new water market would drive innovation within
each of the sectors: policy, funding, technology and
social. Table 1’s Action Plan further delineated how
these new innovations could be accomplished in
each of those four subject sectors.
Statement of the Problem
The global, regional and local resource of water is
and has been historically undervalued. What are
appropriate changes to policies, funding sources,
social and technical aspects of water that will lead to
an appropriate and equitable revaluation of arguably
our most precious resource?
Action Plan
1. Create a cultural shift using strategies that
affect each of the four sectors –policy, funding,
social and technical.
2. Allow revaluation to take place.
3. Revaluation of water will drive restructuring of
the existing water market structure and this in
turn will drive both demand and supply innovation
in the water market.
Evaluating the Solution
+
A community awareness campaign for both
Springfields regarding the true value of our water
would be an effective tool to promote knowledge of
the true cost (embodied cost) of water. This true cost
of water would include maintenance and operations,
water waste, as well as invisible (not yet recognized)
use of water resources in our commercial, industrial
and other sectors. The public’s understanding of this
complexity is one of the first steps towards effective
action.
∆
The complexity of Springdale’s status quo water
supply and waste distribution systems is not easily
comprehensible and will require substantial analysis
and effective outreach to educate the communi-
ty. Resistance to change should be expected in all
sectors from local water utilities to individual water
customers.

HOK Water Workshop
17
Table 2
Moderator
Brian Jencek, HOK
Scribes
Fumiko Docker, HOK
Mathew Roush, HOK
Team Members
Chris Allen, Biomimicry Network
Scott Bryan, Imagine H2O
Tim Furstnau, FICTILIS/UCSC
Patricia Gonzales, Stanford University
Margot Kenney, Sherwood Design Engineers
Ken Kortkamp, SFPUC
Justin Malan, CA Conf. Directors of Env. Health
Approach/Typology:
Creating a Community Water
Network

HOK Water Workshop
18
Brain Storming
Our group started with a conversation about why the
water problem is so difficult. To date, management of
our water resources has escaped market solutions.
On one hand, water is an irreplaceable molecule
required by all life, and access to clean, reliable water
is seen as, and should be, a human right. On the other
hand, potable water is almost free, with few products
orservices including the full cost of delivering reliable,
clean drinking water to a growing human population.
Ourwater sector must also manage competing water
users including agriculture and industry, as well as
the environment’s need for an uncontaminated water
supply. California’swatersectoris predicated upon an
archaic system of water rights, drawn in a time when
our population and our water needs were different
from today, making political attempts to solve the
problem divisive. Agricultural, ecological, and urban
interests are perceived as mutually exclusive, with
each party fighting for what is now perceived as a
diminishing natural resource.
Our current water infrastructure is inflexible and has
limited ability to adjust to shock loading events like
the drought faces by western states.
These symptoms point to a deeper systemic problem
within the nature of our historic water infrastructure
itself. Originally built around a single use strategy, it
represents and reinforces an overly simplistic two
level value system. Water is either clean (potable)
or dirty (waste). Most water uses and sources fall in
between these two ends of a spectrum. As a result,
drinking water is used in applications where it is not
needed, and water which has been lightly used is
disposed outright even though it is still clean enough
for many non-potable uses.

HOK Water Workshop
19
Our historic water infrastructure is resistant to
modification. It’s vast, inflexible, it was expensive to
build, and requires costly regular maintenance.
Defining a Solution
Next our group imagined a future state where our
water infrastructure was not a single use system.
In this future state water would be diverted to a
secondary or tertiary use after each first use, rather
than lost as waste. This system would tie all water
users together into a network where blocks of
users could trade water based on real-time input
of demands, connecting residential, commercial,
industrial, and agricultural users, while also allocating
for local habitat.
In this future state, the network would have real time
monitors and controls so that it could adapt to the
community’schangingneedsandvalues,directingthe
flow of water of various levels of quality for specific
uses based on availability and demand. It would
use financial, social, and technical feedback loops
like a smart-grid. The system would be flexible and
resilient. This network would include advanced water
conserving, irrigation, and treatment technologies,
and a management system that all customers could
access and monitor online.
A lagoon or green infrastructure would serve as
surface storage and groundwater recharge, a
storage “bank” that serves the entire network of
water customers. Green infrastructure would be
seen as an important symbolic, recreational, and
ecological amenity for the community and local
habitat. It would provide an important connection
to the existing groundwater aquifer, from which the
local community draws its water supplies, as well as
support and recharge the local hydrological cycle. As
seasonal demand varies, water could be pulled from
the lagoon for agricultural use and offset historic
well use. Water from the lagoon and its connected
groundwater could also be returned to the drinking
water plant for direct or indirect reuse.
In this future state the embedded cost and value
of water would be understood through the network,
allowing market forces to take hold, including the rise
and fall of water fees based on real-time supply and
demand, and resource-sharing between customers,
including a steady supply of recycled water from the
town’s domestic water customers for agricultural
users year-round.

HOK Water Workshop
20
+
• The ability to monitor real time use of water,
one’s own, one’s neighbor, or even a local farm,
would help educate the public on collective water
consumption.
• Groundwater recharge in addition to surface
reservoir (lagoon) would provide critical water
resupply back to the environment.
• This networked system would enable the trading
of water supplies, by connecting customers and
their variable use..
∆
• This solution includes costly infrastructure
improvements that a small community might
have difficulty funding without outside help.
• Network technologies that have not yet been
applied to or developed for the water sector, but
which have seen some application in the energy
sector, would have to be tested and developed.
Action Plan
Any modification to our water infrastructure will
be expensive, and time consuming. All water
investments should step by step work towards a
more flexible, resilient future.
To create the future state of a networked, accessible
water system that enables the exchange of water
of various levels of quality according to need and
quality, a set of priorities determining the phasing of
improvements would be developed.
Current technologies that could be used immediately
should be evaluated for adaptation in a water system;
the clean energy and smart grid sectors could
pave the way for innovation in water conservation,
monitoring, and controlled diversion or distribution
technologies.
Each prioritized water project should be reviewed
against this future state, with the goal of bringing
“online” various customers to the network, to
collectively, with real-time data, manage and trade
their shared water resources.

HOK Water Workshop
21
Table 3
Moderator
Lynn Filar, HOK
Scribes
Ellen Fuson, HOK
Justin Kelly, HOK
Team Members
Guy Carpenter, Carollo Engineers
Prentiss Darden, Sherwood Design Engineers
Paula Kehoe, SF PUC
Jennifer Parker, UCSC
Tracy Quinn, NRDC
Rowan Roderick-Jones, ARUP
Approach/Typology:
A Flexible Tool for Water System
Planning

HOK Water Workshop
22
Brain Storming
We began by brainstorming the objectives and
questions to develop a problem statement, which
proved surprisingly non-obvious. We used a diagram
to relate systems of water: water supply, waste
water, surface water, and ecosystems. This revealed
synergies and dependencies that began to suggest
specific strategies for improvement. We developed
each strategy individually, examining each through
the lenses of social, political, technical, and financial
frameworks. With the goals of both local and global
scalability and resilient supply as goals, we decided
that a portfolio-based tool set would be our target.
Our hypothesis developed further to become, “A
comprehensive portfolio-based solution to water
scarcity, based on level of service needs, is the most
valuable approach. Water recycling is an aspect of
this portfolio and we are investigating barriers and
solutions to its implementation.” Then, we defined
a decision tree to determine the most appropriate
implementationofrecycledwater-centralized(purple
pipe, indirect potable reuse, direct potable reuse),
on site, and de-centralized. These approaches were
illuminated with the and methods and perspectives
of the professionals at the table, and stakeholders
and a timeline that we defined: we sought a decision
tool that we could employ if we were approached by
a town in need within three weeks of the workshop.
Perhaps the most helpful output that our team
developed was a diagram connecting a series of
questions with a kit of solutions, with the goal
of articulating needs and identifying the most
appropriate responses to those needs. The word
“tree” led to a matrix, outlining a weighted chart to

HOK Water Workshop
23
reveal which reduction, augmentation, and recycling
approaches would be the best fit for long or short
term needs. By acknowledging opportunities for
innovation, our team developed a process that could
be used to find the best solutions forwater resilience.
A portfolio based solution to water scarcity will be
the most comprehensive approach based on an
established level of service, whether potable water
intended for drinking, or recycled water intended
for agricultural or other uses. Water recycling is
an aspect of this portfolio and we will investigate
barriers and solutions to its implementation.
Action Plan
Create a dynamic and flexible first-contact tool to
establish a specific locality’s needs to prepare a plan
to build its water portfolio appropriately.
+
• A systematic framing of the problem
• The group worked consistently to establish
common ground amongst everyone at the table.
This was reflected by the spokesperson position
organically transferring from person to person as
our ideas took shape.
• Final product was near our stated target
∆
• The one day format lends itself to quick, hard
statements - engineers ended up holding
back to not unduly drive the discourse, and our
conversations about art had long germination
times.
• Our tool was not production ready, and while
it may be useful to architects, it may not be
of assistance to the other professions who
contributed to it.

HOK Water Workshop
24
Table 4
Moderator
Marc Arnold, HOK
Scribes
Chris Gardini, HOK
Matthew Fulvio, HOK
Team Members
Stephen Burges, ARUP
Jennifer Clary, Cleanwater Action Program
Elizabeth Dougherty, Wholly H2O
Dominique Gomez, WaterSmart Software
David Sedlak, ReNUWit / Water 4.0
Bruce Wolfe, SF Bay Reg. Water Quality Control
Board.
Approach/Typology:
Water-Centered Eco-Districts

HOK Water Workshop
25
Brain Storming
Our table focused immediately on the opportunities
for using water recycling technology in Springfield
Valley.
We started by making an inventory of the
opportunities and constraints native to SV. Next,
we examined the misalignments between technical
possibilities and the regulatory vantage points. We
explored several different configurations of water
capture, storage and recycling and how those would
fit in this setting. We were constrained by our small
town’s lack of technical resources. We decided
that a large centralized water treatment facility
was likewise not feasible. Costs, maintenance and
community support would be lacking to sustain that
sort of infrastructure.
Unable to build a large water plant, we worked
backwards looking at the smallest, most effective
solutions. How could we match water sources with
end uses? We decided that on site rainwater capture
and storage would be beneficial at a residential
scale. This presented the architectural challenge of
whether and how these could fit onto existing home
sites.
Conservation, greywater, and rainwater harvesting
were not going to get us to ourgoal. And a centralized
solution was already ruled out. So we developed
a Mini District advanced treatment scheme and
spent the remainder of the day refining that idea.
The Mini Districts would be sized to a neighborhood
scale, focused around a community center. The
community center would be the public facing portion
of the district water recycling plant, occupying a
former house, park, or small commercial building.
The advantage of this scheme is that blackwater
is reused without any need for storage, purple pipe,
or additional new infrastructure. The Mini Districts
couldbedeployedinanincrementalmanner,defraying
upfront cost and allowing a transition for community
buy-in. Even if only one or a few of the Mini Districts
were developed, they would still reduce to the load
on the existing infrastructure, benefiting the entire
community. The local utility would manage and
finance these Mini Districts. Finally, it is expected
that State Regulations would be in line with this idea
by 2016 making this a very viable option.
However our final conversation took a hard look at
what implementing Mini Districts would really require
and whether they would fit in a place like Springfield
Valley. Wefelttheideamightworkinothersettingsas
well such as Mobile Home Parks, College Campuses,
Military Bases, or Resort Communities.

HOK Water Workshop
26
+
• Concrete, implementable idea
• The mini plant can be implemented in isolation,
and possibly with disregard to the ‘district’.
• Mixes Recycled Water into the existing water
supply.
• Minimizes impact on existing infrastructure.
• Provides community interface with ‘water
community centers’
∆
• Long term use/value of ‘water community cen-
ters’ wasn’t really explored.
• The scheme ‘locks-in’ existing infrastructure, by
extending it and stranding other future options
via capital intensity.
• Requires special technical knowledge to develop
and operate.
• May not be cost effective at scale provided.
In small California towns where large scale
implementation of recycled water plants is not
feasible a mini district advanced treatment solution
is the most appropriate. What is the best way to
implement this strategy?
Action Plan
What is the implementation strategy for these mini
district treatment plants with respect to the four
lenses: policy, funding, social and technical? What
are their feasibilities and constraints?

HOK Water Workshop
28
I was deeply heartened by the enthusiastic response to the HOK Water Workshop – we had a great turn
out! We had a diverse cross-section of participants ranging from NASA and the EPA to the Sierra Club,
the Biomimicry Network and top experts from University’s, NGO and professional design practices. The
participants were organized into four different groups to brainstorm approaches to water self-sufficiency for
two water distressed hypothetical communities, with an emphasis on water recycling.
Participants represented four aspects of water – policy, funding, technological and sociological. We wanted
to explore strategies for water self-sufficiency that were creative, implementable, effective and scalable, and
had the power to influence the social discourse and change people’s minds about their water usage.
There was broad acknowledgment that water management issues are complex and that more information
about the communities and their resources, as well as time would be necessary to develop optimum solutions.
Undeterred, each group developed a unique approach to the Problem Statement, creating a rich diversity of
strategies that challenged everyone’s thinking. Table One focused on shifting the cultural value of water, Table
Two created a community water network, Table Three devised a flexible tool for water system planning, and
Table Four developed an approach to water-centered eco-districts.
Lessons Learned
California’s current water approach is rooted in an historical Gold Rush Era water rights system, with many
of the participants interests entrenched in maintaining the status quo. Any change to this system is akin to
changing the Constitution. A regulatory overhaul of how water is collected, distributed, and used will be an
important step. In addition a full understanding of the true value and costs for water will be central to any
effective change.
Our complex and overlapped system is primarily made of regional centralized systems, though there are many
discussions ongoing regarding the possible benefits and resiliency of flexible decentralized systems. Key
features of this discussion revolve around the amount of energy expended by our water systems as well as the
amount of water used running our energy systems. One exciting development is interest in new technologies
developed through a deep understanding of our natural water systems.
Effective change will be difficult within our highly interconnected system, yet big picture changes are already
underway. California’s new groundwater legislation for the first time regulates the pumping of groundwater
resources. In the last election voters overwhelmingly passed a state ballot measure that included $750 million
for water recycling. Further efforts are underway to set standards and update policies for direct potable
reuse- a strong first step towards water neutrality.
Post Script

HOK Water Workshop
29
Next Steps
So what are the next steps that can be taken to grow this important conversation? In late March HOK will
host a Nexus Night open house that will focus on water issues. This will include a presentation recapping
the Water Workshop. HOK will also moderate a panel discussion featuring key water issues, providing an
opportunity for development of discourse and strategy exploration. We encourage everyone to join us at this
event as there will be ample time for further discussion with your peers as well as opportunity to broaden our
water network.
HOK’s role
Ourmostimportantnextstepistoinvolveasmanyofourindustrypartnersandclientsinthiswaterconversation
as we can, creating a groundswell of interest regarding sustainable water systems throughout our community.
Next we will work to implement effective change. One of our strengths is in creating environments that
support and even stimulate change. Our work intersects a broad and diverse base of professionals from all
of the building engineering disciplines to the broader fabrication and production industries, as well as clients
from all of the building sectors ranging from commercial to educational and institutional to industrial.
Eventually we will be in the position to help foster and implement developing technologies regarding water on
every conceivable level – from individual use to industrial sized applications. For now, however, it is important
that we immerse ourselves deeply in this exploration. Our goal is to lead by example and put a spotlight on
water as a major global issue that we can positively impact.
Russ Drinker
HOK

HOK Water Workshop
30
Plus / Delta
+
∆
• Food
• Breaks
• People (great mix)
• Connections
• Happy Hour
• Cross-pollination between groups
• Allow individuals to self-select after
introductions
• Introduction – What is the town’s
water source and how much water is
used daily?
• All the graphic information was
pinned up but access to the metric
data was limited during the workshop
• AM Session happened too quickly
Creating the Nexus: Workshop Structure
Lessons Learned
Process for Nexus – because this was our first
effort, we built the protocol for running a workshop
of this scope. Modeled loosely after hackathons in
the tech industry, but scheduled for only one day, the
workshop attempted to tackle a difficult problem,
in a short period of time, with a variety of subject
matter experts. The following could be refined:
1. Topic Selection: the breadth (or depth) of the
topic should have appropriately scheduled time
for ideation, iteration, and implementation
2. Refinement of the idea: Within the water
sector, recycled water was identified as an
important focus for its availability as a solution,
but with barriers to implementation that must
be overcome. Focus on a specific subtopic
within a larger topic is advantageous with time
constraints.
3. Attendee Selection: a cross section of different
disciplines brings multiple perspectives;
enabling the self-selection of participants to
work on particular themes may speed up the
ideation process
4. Event Creation:
5. Event Logistics:
6. Compilation of supporting materials
7. Distillation of the content of the workshop
requiresaprocessenablinginputandrefinement.
In theory this process should become more refined
as the team/office learns from this and future events.
Our contacts list gets more robust, our experience
gets more established, the Nexus group establishes
a name for itself outside of our office.

HOK Water Workshop
31
Post-Event Feedback from participants
Table 1
• Host potlucks in the community.
• Acknowledge self-constructed barriers of
ourselves.
• Look for nature based / climate smart solutions –
make sense for people and the planet.
• Consider the major influence of architecture on
design.
• Develop components of water infrastructure –
interaction of culture and infrastructure.
• Look for community based site scale options
• Avid conversations with community members
to be encouraged. “Every person might want to
be a steward. In another community you might
need to go to a mayor. Some communities may
not want to see a change.”
Table 2
• For these conversations to happen we need
look at the quality of the demand. Bills will come
forward that will reduce the quality of treatment.
• Put the right source with the right demand.
• Get the communities to talk to and listen to each
other.
• Be clear with town – come from a place of
learning – see how their progress can enhance
our knowledge – be conscious of role as big city.
Table 3
• Who could be our potential partners? - Water
Reuse Association, technology, regulations.
• Put togethera bibliography of existing resources.
Build network with existing groups.
• Recognize there are groups with different
focused interest – finance vs technology.
• Share info/news, so all disparate sectors stay up
to speed.
• New approaches to water: Collaboration with
institutions.
• Assess the appropriate urban settings and
expand.
• Identify barriers to implementation.
• Develop technology or policy solutions to
overcome barriers.
Table 4
• Talk to managers of small water systems lacking
water utility representation. There are economic
and political barriers to consider.
• Hone our message. Determine what’s new here.
• Take the conversation to a new place. Look for
pilot projects - lots of actions are underway. “Join
in the fray. Time is now. It’s happening.“
• Understanding the value of water and how
it’s perceived. Make the nexus between the
value of water and reuse – how do we build the
sustainability design in a way the public can
understand.
• Funding - get people involved.

HOK Water Workshop
32
Acknowledgments
Earlier this year, we started with the strategic goal to “work differently.” With this spirit, we embarked on
an ambitious mission - to revolutionize the way we build our world. Inspired by The Medici Effect by Frans
Johansson, the Nexus group was created to bring together thought leaders from diverse disciplines to
cross-pollinate ideas and transform our practice. Our goal is to rethink major environmental problems and
contribute positively to our community.
We would like to extend a special thank you to Paula Kehoe for her continued support, David Sedlak for
taking the leap of faith with HOK and kick-starting this effort with us, Jennifer Clary for her early support and
dedication, and Josiah Cain for working closely with us in developing the thesis and content for the workshop.
We would like to thank the experts who have hosted forums, which helped build a base of understanding to
spring-board collaboration: Miriam Gordon, Jennifer Clary, Paula Kehoe, David Sedlack, Brian Jencek, Josiah
Cain, Gene A. Felice II, Jennifer Parker, Rowan Roderick-Jones, Lee Jaslow, and Mayor Jeff Gee.
This event wouldn’t have been possible without the leadership and clarity of vision of Russ Drinker and Steve
Morton. Thank you to our Nexus Moderators: Lynn Filar, Marc Arnold, Brian Jencek, Josiah Cain. A special
thanks to our collaborative partners at Sherwood Design Engineers for their focus: Margot Kenney and
Prentiss Darden.
This event was facilitated by the organization and planning skills of Sandy Valentin and Jimmy Takagi and the
design skills of Jordan Bruce. Thank you to our marketing advisors Tisha Tasaki and Stephanie VanDyke for
keeping our jargon in check.
Finally, we would like to thank the NexusTeam:Tom Fortier, Mathew Roush, Justin Kelly, Brian Jencek, Marissa
Bruce, Franco Marinaro, Gabrielle Saponara, Fumiko Docker, Matt Fulvio, Chris Gardini, Bart van Vliet, Jon
Tai, Mara Baum, Ryan McBrayer, Garam Hann, Ellen Fuson, Art Morrisey, and Russ Drinker. Their commitment
to the mission of Nexus will hopefully spark positive change in our built environment.
Create the Nexus: Our Mission Statement
• Be the catalyst at the intersection of all disciplines touching the built environment.
• Create a culture of critical thinkers incorporating new partners and ideas into our business model.
• Embrace a steady stream of disruptive thought to challenge our thinking, test our comfort zone, and
enliven our discussions.

HOK Water Workshop
33
Distinguished Guests

Water
Ideation Workshop
Information Package

HOK Water Workshop
3
Contents
Preface........................................................................................................................................................................... 4
HOK NEXUS Mission.............................................................................................................................................. 6
Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................................................... 6
Distinguished Guests.............................................................................................................................................. 7
Agenda........................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Evaluation Criteria................................................................................................................................................... 9
Outcomes..................................................................................................................................................................10
Springfields - Why Two California Towns?.................................................................................................11
Springfield, CA - Valley Town............................................................................................................................12
Springfield, CA - Coastal Town........................................................................................................................14
Case Study - NEWater of Singapore............................................................................................................16
Case Study - Cloudcroft, NM...........................................................................................................................18
Case Study - Big Spring, TX.............................................................................................................................20
Case Study - St. Petersburg, FL.....................................................................................................................22
Conversation with Russ......................................................................................................................................24
Participants List.....................................................................................................................................................26

HOK Water Workshop
4
The global shortage of potable water is a primary crisis of the 21st century.
The subject of water, and how we use it, manage it, and treat it is as varied and complex as the communities
who rely on it. The problems we see across the globe are ones that will continue to get worse if unchecked.
The status quo isn’t working, and something needs to change.
Growing populations are outgrowing safe water resources. Infrastructure is aging without proper funding for
upgrades. Governmental policies and regulations are woefully behind the need to change our usage patterns
and waste. We find ourselves at the point of not having enough of the safe water essential to our vitality and
are on the verge on crisis.
Demand for potable/domestic water increasingly competes with the demands of industry, energy, agriculture
and the broader ecosystem. Here in California, all of our communities are directly affected by these divergent
needs. Many smaller towns are even threatened with extinction due to the verity of the drought and the lack
of this essential resource.
95% of water used by the average American household is used once, then either discarded down our drains
or lost to landscape irrigation. If we can re-imagine the recoverable portion of this waste-stream as a resource
in a closed loop system mimicking the natural hydrological cycle, it could become one of our greatest water
assets.
HOK comes to this forum interested in learning how we can contribute to rethinking water usage in a mean-
ingful way. We hope to change the conversation about water for California communities, using recycled water
as part of the solution.
Our focus is to generate actionable ideas for small communities seeking a more resilient water supply, which
can then be scaled up to larger populations. We aim to facilitate the discussion to build on ideas and grow
new connections through a multi-disciplinary workshop. This “hackathon” inspired approach will be centered
on recycled and reused water as a means to mitigate the boom/bust cycle of drought. We hope to reframe the
value and advantage of treating and reusing this valuable resource.
Assembling talented people from a variety of platforms and areas of expertise for this day-long workshop is
a first step. Using our combined expertise, we will explore water reuse through social, technical, economic
and policy lenses.
With oft-constrained budgets, limited clout at the state and federal government level, and stiff competition
for resources, California’s small communities are increasingly finding themselves under duress to provide
reliable sources for clean water. We believe there is opportunity in innovation, coordination and partnership
to build a vanguard of early adopters leading the way to a more sustainable future.
Access to reliable supplies of healthy clean water is essential. The technology to treat greywater and black-
water for safe potable and other uses is well established, but the standards and policies for usage are not
well defined in the United States. Most importantly, recycling is a charged emotional and political issue. The
re-use of water can help communities more effectively manage supply and demand, building long term water
security.
Preface

HOK Water Workshop
5
We now have convincing data and countless places that would benefit from using recycled water to ensure
water security. Yet recycling water is still gaining traction as the solution for water management, especial-
ly for potable use. The public discourse on water currently focuses on conservation, identification of ‘new
sources’ and resource management. Issues of source quality and available quantity often dominate the
conversation. Recycling and re-use are often tossed to the wayside as a secondary approach, rather than a
viable primary means to address shortage and quality of water. Among the challenges faced when proposing
recycled water as a solution to water source mitigation:
Social Norms
Water has a long history of coming to users pumped straight from a natural source either to users directly, or
in more recent history, to treatment plants for use by the public. The image of the pristine mountain stream
or underground naturally filtered aquifer has a strong hold on the imagination. Conversely, the image of
reused water, particularly those “toilet-to-tap” campaigns, conjures up negative public perception (the “yuck”
factor and concern for safety). The connection must be made in people’s minds that post-treatment quality
can be as safe as or safer than our traditional water sources.
Branding
Blackwater and even greywater, carries a stigma that needs to be overcome. We need to figure out how to
make the image of blackwater and greywater more palatable. This shift requires a change in public percep-
tion to overcome the “yuck” factor with a more appealing image.
Education
We recognize people’s concerns for safety and the need to change the pre-conceptions and misconceptions
about the value and safety of recycled water. From the design, installation, and maintenance of these sys-
tems to the education of policymakers and regulators, the subject of recycled water needs to become part
of the public lexicon.
Incentives
Communities, individuals and possibly the utilities themselves need the incentive to incorporate recycled
water as a key component to water resiliency. Much like the way the energy industry has piloted programs for
solar and wind generated power, the push to incorporate water as a renewable resource can be effectively
led by policy. Programs designed to offset startup costs and increase the competitiveness of these systems
with the status quo could also lead the charge.
Infrastructure
Our water distribution systems are aging and need to be upgraded. Effort has been spent on “purple pipe”
systems, which are considered by some to be redundant and unnecessary. Existing treatment plants are not
geared toward treating used water to recirculate back to consumers. But opportunities do exist to change
the way we use this valuable resource by installing replacements and initiating upgrade programs.

HOK Water Workshop
6
HOK NEXUS Mission
Earlier this year, we started with the strategic goal to “work differently.” With this spirit, we embarked on
an ambitious mission - to revolutionize the way we build our world. Inspired by The Medici Effect by Frans
Johansson, the Nexus group was created to bring together thought leaders from diverse disciplines to cross-
pollinate ideas and transform our practice. Our goal is to rethink major environmental problems and contribute
positively to our community.
We would like to extend a special thank you to Paula Kehoe for her continued support, David Sedlak for
taking the leap of faith with HOK and kick-starting this effort with us, Jennifer Clary for her early support and
dedication, and Josiah Cain for working closely with us in developing the thesis and content for the workshop.
We would like to thank the experts who have hosted forums, which helped build a base of understanding to
spring-board collaboration: Miriam Gordon, Jennifer Clary, Paula Kehoe, David Sedlack, Brian Jencek, Josiah
Cain, Gene A. Felice II, Jennifer Parker, Rowan Roderick-Jones, Lee Jaslow, and Mayor Jeff Gee.
This event wouldn’t have been possible without the leadership and clarity of vision of Russ Drinker and Steve
Morton. Thank you to our Nexus Moderators: Lynn Filar, Marc Arnold, Brian Jencek, Josiah Cain. A special
thanks to our collaborative partners at Sherwood Design Engineers for their focus: Margot Kenney and
Prentiss Darden.
This event was facilitated by the organization and planning skills of Sandy Valentin and Jimmy Takagi and the
design skills of Jordan Bruce. Thank you to our marketing advisors Tisha Tasaki and Stephanie VanDyke for
keeping our jargon in check.
Finally, we would like to thank the Nexus Team: Tom Fortier, Mathew Roush, Justin Kelly, Brian Jencek, Marissa
Bruce, Franco Marinaro, Gabrielle Saponara, Fumiko Docker, Matt Fulvio, Chris Gardini, Bart van Vliet, Jon Tai,
Mara Baum, Ryan McBrayer, Garam Hann, Ellen Fuson, Art Morrisey, and Russ Drinker. Their commitment to
the mission of Nexus will hopefully spark positive change in our built environment.
Acknowledgments
The mission of the Nexus Group at HOK San Francisco is to:
• Be the catalyst at the intersection of all disciplines touching the built environment.
• Create a culture of critical thinkers incorporating new partners and ideas into our business model.
• Embrace a steady stream of disruptive thought to challenge our thinking, test our comfort zone, and
enliven our discussions.

HOK Water Workshop
7
Distinguished Guests

HOK Water Workshop
8
Agenda
AM
PM
8:30
12:00
1:00
5:00
Kickoff
Scan
Focus
Act
Evaluation
We’re going to look around widely at water in the setting of small California towns.
It’s a time to share knowledge, brainstorm and play with ideas, and ‘get out there.’
As the morning proceeds we start to generate new ideas about recycling water.
We will take our work from the morning and start to frame the problem as we now understand it, putting together a
bunch of different designs.
We’ll assemble the criteria by which our schemes can be evaluated.
We’re going to test our designs.
Would these really work? What are the barriers? What are the best ideas?
Welcome statement and event participant introductions will lead directly to a brief and informative overview of water
issues affecting small California towns and situating the exploration of two idealized California towns – one in a valley
and one on the coast. Team will work to create policies, programs, projects or products that solve a water demand
shortage through the reuse of water and changing the conversation around water reuse.
Introductions, overview of the materials. Framing the context of the problem
Team brainstorms ideas and develops conceptual models.
Team ideas rigorously evaluated, top ideas selected for continued development.
Transform the conceptual idea into a viable system.
Team presentations, project evaluations and next steps.
Teams will present their solutions and set up the next steps in the conversation.
LUNCH
BREAK
9:30
* All meals, water, coffee, and tea will be provided throughout the event
to properly fuel our collaboration.

HOK Nexus Water Workshop is aimed at brainstorming creative new proposals (Programs, Policies,
Projects or Products) for water use and reuse that will redefine our regional conversation regarding
water use and reuse in small California towns.
Currently that conversation revolves around water conservation and we would like to open it up with
respect to reuse of our most valuable resource.
Evaluation Criteria is based on the following goals:
9
HOK Water Workshop
Evaluation Criteria
Creativity
Innovation is mission critical
regarding the developing crisis
to our fresh water supply
Power to
Change Minds
Proposals that change the
conversation about water
Effective
Schemes that set a high bar
for relative effort to impact
Scalable
Proposals that are scalable
to a variety of town sizes and
configurations are preferred
Implementable
Proposals that have a
clear set of strategies for
implementation required
(including changing cultural
norms)
During this event there will be three opportunities for evaluation.
Scan Focus Act
The first will be evaluation by the team
creating the proposals.
The evaluation’s purpose will be to
select the team’s top options for pre-
sentation to the larger assembly.
The second will be after an elevator
pitch to the group to determine which
proposals from each team will move
forward into the focus and act sections.
The third will be towards the end of
the day to help wrap up the event. The
purpose will be to select proposals that
capture the group’s imagination and
have potential legs to move forward.
evaluation evaluation evaluation
+ +
+

HOK Water Workshop
10
Outcomes
We fully expect to have four or more compelling elegant proposals at the end of this event.
As will all creative thought –it is nothing without the appropriate follow up that is central to the success
of any important endeavor.
Post the event HOK will lead a rigorous follow up program with the following steps:
Memorialized findings of both the event process and individual team product
will be shared widely.
New partnerships and collaboration channels will be coalesced and nurtured.
Team proposals will be deeply evaluated, and appropriate collateral materials
will be generated for the following possible next steps:
a. White papers
b. Presentations at TED or like conferences
c. Funding and grant possibilities will be followed.
We look forward to the continuation of this important venture.
STAYTUNED!

HOK Water Workshop
Springfields - Why Two California Towns?
The water crisis effects California Small towns in a myriad of different ways, no two of which are exactly the
same. There are however similarities and more importantly significant differences that need to be accounted
for in any solution plan.
Similarities:
Both towns are similar in size and land area.
Springfield by the Sea is relatively dense and expects population growth.
Springfield Valley has more open space and the population is steady.
Differences
Water
Supply
Geography
Water
Outfall
• Springfield Valley gets the bulk of its supply from surface water and seasonal precipitation.
• Springfield by the Sea receives most of its water from ground sources.
• Springfield Valley sits by itself in a valley in the shadow of a coastal range.
• Springfield by the Sea is a more suburban context in a coastal plain region.
• Springfield Valley’s outfall is primarily river and surface water.
• Springfield by the Sea outfall goes primarily to the sea.
11
Industry • Tourism is important to both Springfields, providing for both retail and hospitality business.
• Springfield Valley has more agriculture and light industry.
• Springfield by the Sea resident are largely professionals many of whom commute work elsewhere.

HOK Water Workshop
12
• Total: 2.803 sq mi (7.260 km2)
• Land: 2.798 sq mi (7.248 km2)
• Water: 0.005 sq mi (0.013 km2)
Area
• Total: 4,845 (2012)Population
Springfield, CA - Valley Town
Industry
Water
System
Water
Supply
Drinking
Water
Treatment
Plant
• A city owned utility
• Includes reservoirs, watersheds,
water treatment plant, distribution
system, and storage tanks
• Water Resources Control Board over-
sees their activity
• Water sourced from local and centen-
nial reservoirs and their watersheds
• Built in 1989
• Located in the watershed near reservoir
• Capacity to produce 2.2 mil. gallons/day
• Main transmission line 4000’ long
• Powered 100% by solar PV system,
which has the capacity to generate
530,000 kilowatts annually
Water
Quality
• Issue of contaminated groundwater
from now closed hydraulics plant
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
• Service area is within the city limits
with special agreements with 3 adja-
cent areas that send their untreated
domestic wastewater to city
• Effluent is released to Outlet Creek
(permitted, must be a 10:1 ratio from
Oct 1 - May 15) during wet season
and used to irrigate local pastures
during dry months
• Maintains a gravity sewer collection
system of over 20 linear miles
• Public Works Department maintains
the city’s infrastructure
Emergency • Jan 2014: Water emergency de-
clared, most stringent water conser-
vation imposed
• Stage 5 emergency, limits use to 150
gallons per day per residence of up
to 4 occupants; requires commer-
cial and industrial users to reduce by
35% from last year’s levels
• Developing an emergency water
treatment facility; uses 2 existing
wells, pipes that water to a temp wa-
ter treatment facility, and blends that
water with reservoir water; system
estimated to extend existing supplies
by 3 months with continued water
conservation measures
• Agriculture
• Light Industry
• Tourism

HOK Water Workshop
13
Land Use & Zoning
Information for the Springfields will be provided on the day of the event:
Topography Geomorphic Data &
Landslides
Soil Type Watersheds

HOK Water Workshop
14
• Total: 4.598 sq mi (11.909 km2)
• Land: 4.598 sq mi (11.909 km2)
• Water: 0 sq mi (0 km2)
Area
• Total: 9,644 (2010)Population
Springfield, CA - Coastal Town
Industry
Water
System
Water
Supply
Drinking
Water
Treatment
Plant
• District serves 50,000 through 14,500
connections in 4 service areas
• District spans seven miles of shoreline
and extends three miles inland to local
watershed in the mountains.
• Water sourced 100% from 2 groundwa-
ter aquifers : Aquifer A, supplying 3,600
acre feet, and Aquifer B, supplying
1,800 acre feet; all within the local ba-
sin, which is shared with other cities, the
Central Water District, small mutual wa-
ter companies, and private well owners.
• District operates 16 wells that ex-
tract 4200 acre feet, approx 1.4 bil-
lion gallons of water per year.
• 80 monitoring wells in 25 locations
monitor quality and groundwater lev-
els, measuring chlorides, general min-
erals, total dissolved solids and static
water level to indicate threat of salt
water intrusion.
Water
Quality
• Groundwater basin currently in state
of overdraft (more being extracted
than can be replenished by rainfall),
which has led to seawater intrusion.
If untreated, groundwater wells will
be contaminated.
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
• Regional facility
• Outfall into ocean
• Operating and disposing outfall to
the ocean since 1928, located near
Neary Lagoon
• Currently designed to treat 17 MGD
with average daily flow of 10 MGD;
design for wet weather flow is 81
MGD
• Incorporates a 50 kW photovoltaic
system
• Integrates a 1.3 megawatt cogene-
ration system into facility power grid;
has been using biogas to produce
heat and electricity since 1989ish;
expected to generate about 9.5 mil-
lion kwH electric power a year, enough
to power about 3,000 homes.
• Commuting Professionals
• Tourism

HOK Water Workshop
15
Land Use & Zoning Topography Geomorphic Data &
Landslides
Soil Type Watersheds
Information for the Springfields will be provided on the day of the event:

HOK Water Workshop
16
Case Study - NEWater of Singapore
Background
Singapore is the world’s second densest nation in the world, with a population density of 18,051 people per
square mile (2012 census). Lacking enough domestic water supplies to support its population, Singapore
relied heavily on water imports via a pipeline from the Johor region of Malaysia during the 20th century. This
supply was augmented by dam and reservoir projects to expand local storage capacity, and modernization of
the infrastructure to Johor.
Impact
Singapore’s Public Utility Board (PUB) developed a
policy called the “Four Taps”: the first and second taps
are local water catchments and water imports, the
third is water reclamation, or NEWater, and the fourth
is desalination. The first NEWater treatment plant
was commissioned in 2000 and tested for two years
for water quality. Since then the country has become
a global water research and technology hub, actively
supported and funded by the government, with a
goal of 80% of water supply provided by NEWater or
desalination in 2060.
Between 1998 and 2002 Singapore unsuccessfully
tried to negotiate water agreements with Malaysia be-
yond 2061. Singapore decided to achieve self-suffi-
ciency in water supply before 2061 rather than rely
on negotiating rates with Malaysia, and embarked on
the NEWater Singapore Water Reclamation Study,
exploring an integrated approach to water supply and
sanitation to provide a reliable domestic water supply.
Challenges
While the Singapore government studied alternate
water supplies as early as the 1970s, at that time
they found recycling and desalination technology too
costly and unreliable to implement at the time.

HOK Water Workshop
17
Funding
Two of Singapore’s operational NEWater plants
are run by the PUB, and two more are owned and
operated by private companies. Singapore devel-
oped its reverse osmosis technology in a public
private-partnership (PPP), and pursues some of
its research and development in water technology
through PPPs. Singapore has become a global hub
for water research and development, with over 70
local and international water companies and 23 re-
search and development centers working on 300
projects valued at $185 million.
Singapore’s water rates are priced as the full cost
of delivering water via NEWater reclamation or de-
salination, including cost of infrastructure mainte-
nance and capital. Tariffs include use fees for water
and sewer and a conservation tax set at 30% with
an increase to 45% should a household consume
more than 40 cubic meters per month. An average
household is charged $1.88/cubic meter, including
taxes. Compare this to an average rate of $1.59/
cubic meter charged for single family domestic wa-
ter use by the San Francisco PUC.
Technical
The “Third Tap”, or NEWater, is highly treated reclaimed
water produced today at one of four water reclamation
plants. According to Singapore’s Public Utilities Board
(PUB), NEWater supplies 30% of the total water de-
mand, with 6% for indirect potable use and recharge
of the nation’s reservoirs. The rest is used in non-po-
table applications by industry including electronics
manufacturing, and cooling towers. NEWater makes up
1% of Singapore’s potable water requirement of 380
million gallons per day, and consistently exceeds the
quality requirements set out by the USEPA and WHO.
Social
In order to promote public acceptance of NEWater,
the Singapore government embarked on a public
information campaign emphasizing the economic
and national security benefits of water supply in-
dependence. A NEWater Visitor Centre was built
to provide outreach and promote understanding of
the water purification process. The Visitor Centre
has become a success, winning numerous awards,
as well as the UN Water award in 2014 for “Best
participatory, communication, awareness-raising
and education practices”. The Visitor Center has
welcomed 700,000 visitors in 10 years. In ad-
dition to interactive exhibits explaining the NE-
Water treatment process, PUB bottles and gives
away NEWater for consumption at public events.
In 2002, when the NEWater campaign was rolled
out, top government officials drank and endorsed
NEWater.
An independent survey by Forbes Research in 2002
confirmed that 82% of Singaporeans would drink NE-
Water directly, and 16% would drink it if mixed with
reservoir water.
Singapore Facts
Population 5.5 million (2012)
Land Area 277 square miles
Median Income $60,528 per household (2011)
GDP $55,182 (2013)
NEWater System Facts
Four operational “factories” Bedok, Kranji (2002), operated by Singapore’s
Public Utilities Board; Ulu Pandan, operated by Keppel Seghers (2007), Chan-
gi, operated by Sembcorp Industries (2009)
NEWater Capacity 115 million gallons per day
Design
Multiple Barrier waste reclamation
• Conventional wastewater treatment
• Microfiltration/ultrafiltration
• Reverse osmosis
• UV disinfection
Average Total Precipitation 92”/yr
Historic Water Sources
Local rivers and estuaries, dammed with reservoirs, for rainwater catchment.
Imported water: Johor River Pipeline (Malaysia, 1927-2061)
Average Demand Profile
30% domestic, 70% industrial/commercial
Alternatives Tried or Considered Desalination
Funding
Annual investment in water supply and sanitation $609million/year (2010);
Funded by retained earnings, bond debt financing

HOK Water Workshop
18
Case Study - Cloudcroft, NM
Background
Cloudcroft, New Mexico was founded in the 1890’s as an excursion destination by a railroad company. Tour-
ism remains its economic base today. Remote and sitting on a slope at 9,000 feet, it is at the top of the
watershed and has no underground aquifer. The broader drought conditions of the US Southwest have hit
particularly hard here. During a severe drought in 2004, Cloudcroft was forced to truck 20,000 gallons per
day up the mountain, at considerable expense, during peak tourist season.
Tree ring data from the area shows that drier conditions are the norm. The old potable water system was
incapable of dealing with this anticipated long-term “drought”, and it prevented growth of the town. After
exhausting simpler, smaller scale alternatives, Cloudcroft became the first town in the United States to start
construction of a Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) + Reverse Osmosis (RO) Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) system.
Challenges
“The village really doesn’t have any other choice if it wants to continue to grow economically”. Cloudcroft was
founded on a site chosen for its beauty, not its resources. It relies on annual rain and snow to meet its water
demands, yet precipitation is decreasing as the town is planning for continued moderate growth. Reservoirs,
wells, and pipelines at the needed scale are simply impractical.
Cloudcroft is a small town with modest infrastructure needs. Having little experience with large engineering
projects, the Cloudcroft town council inadvertently found itself undertaking a cutting edge project that chal-
lenged social, policy, and funding norms.

HOK Water Workshop
19
Policy
There is no state nor federal policy around direct
potable reuse. This project required policy innova-
tion in conjunction with technical innovation.
Funding
At least as impressive as the engineering of the
DPR system, Cloudcroft managed to pay for
nearly the entire project through State and Fed-
eral sources. The town council displayed a savvy
understanding of State and National grant pro-
grams, beginning with documenting a clear need,
a clear plan, and prior examples of successful use
of grant money. The municipality applied an initial
$600,000 from a state water conservation/inno-
vation initiative towards the $3,000,000 waste
water reuse system. Further funding was obtained
from a New Mexico Water Trust Board grant and
annual state legislature grants over several years.
A photo-voltaic power system for the DPR system
was enabled with a $200,000 federal grant.
Technical
Cloudcroft’s 1952 wastewater treatment plant
was converted to a membrane bioreactor system.
Effluent from this stage is further purified through
reverse osmosis prior to combining it with natural
water sources. Before distribution through the po-
table water system, intermingled water is passed
through an ultrafiltration membrane and then dis-
infected with ultraviolet light (UV) and hydrogen
peroxide advanced oxidation (AOP), then activat-
ed carbon then chlorine. Reject water from each
treatment stage is utilized for non-potable needs.
For instance, the reject, or concentrate water from
the RO process is retained for fire control in the
area. All three of these membrane types, MBR,
RO, and UF, require pressure differentials to oper-
ate, typically provided with electricity-consuming
pumps. In Cloudcroft, the elevation difference be-
tween the MBR and RO is enough to eliminate the
need for pumps at that stage.
Impact
The 2004 experience spurred Cloudcroft to seek se-
curity in a solution that put them at the forefront of
wastewater reuse in the United States. Cloudcroft
was successfully because they solved technical, so-
cial, and funding challenges. They are a relevant model
for any town that is facing a shortage of potable water.
Cloudcroft Facts
Population 674 (median age 49)
Land Area 1.50 sq. miles (465 people/sq. mile)
Median Income $38,690 per Household, $23,965 per capita, 1
2.9% in poverty (2012)
Total Payroll $8,588,000 (2012)
Average Total Precipitation 30”/yr
Historic Water Sources Spring and surface water
Average Demand Profile Primarily domestic and small business
Alternatives Tried or Considered Desalination
Water Reuse Strategy
Dual water treatment - primary treatment with membrane bioreactor, then
RO for direct potable reuse of 100,000 gpd (up to 50% of potable demand)
System Capacity
100,000 gpd, expandable to 200,000
Alternatives Tried or Considered
More wells and storage, which ultimately proved insufficient. Numerous per-
sonal and small scale systems.
Energy Supply Profile N/A
Funding - State $636,000 from Innovative Fund
$500,000 from the Water Trust Board
$1.2 million attained over three years from annual legislative requests
Ongoing operations and maintenance are anticipated to be lower than cur-
rent system.
Funding - Federal $200,000 for on-site photovoltaic
Timeline
Construction start: 2006
Substantial Completion: 2008
Expected Full Operation: 2015
Social
This treatment system was one of three parts of a
broader long term water supply strategy that is cru-
cial to the town’s survival. The other, equally important
initiatives were fixing leaks and discouraging frivolous
consumption, and securing alternate sources (which
has yet be fully addressed). Identifying leaks relies
on reporting by engaged citizens. Convincing water
customers and regulators of the safety and reliability
of the system has required testing and procedures in
excess of what is required for a conventional system.

HOK Water Workshop
20
Case Study - Big Spring, TX
Background
With a population of 28,125, Big Spring is the biggest town in Howard County, Texas. The spring is named
after a long dry aquifer that, though small in size, supplied a reputed daily discharge of over 100,000 gallons
in the 1880. It was completely depleted by the 1920s.
Water right holders, as everywhere in Texas, are still allowed to use and reuse 100% of their water prior to
discharge; however, once discharged it becomes property of the state. The collected wastewater represents
a significant, drought-proof source of water. Even with increased populations, the expected input will only
increase.
Challenges
Big Spring gets fewer than 20 inches of rain a year.
Due to dry air that is commonplace in west Texas, wa-
ter evaporates from their reservoir at three times that
rate. There is a need to diversify sources other than
the existing reservoirs to augment the demand of 36
million gallons per day.
The community has been subjected to drought over
the past nine years. The main water supply, from two
reservoirs managed by the Colorado River Municipal
Water District (CRMWD), was well below capacity, with
one going below 1.4 % of capacity in recent years.
Alternate approaches including source locations were discarded due to:
• Strict requirements of inter-basin transfer authorizations
• Complications due to physical distance or difference in elevation required infrastructure investment
without long term security
• Without further study, much uncertainty prevailed regarding the quantity of groundwater sources
available

HOK Water Workshop
21
Policy
The state of Texas has no established regulations
for blending reclaimed water with the raw water
source. CRMWD had therefore required the aug-
mented water supply to meet primary drinking wa-
ter standards. Treatment must be very reliable to
inspire public confidence.
Funding
Treated waste water, noted as the most promising
source of supplemental supply, was investigated
in a feasibility study. The study found the project-
ed costs for Big Springs favorable, with the total
for the plant at around $14 million. Funding was
secured primarily from the state water board. The
overall projected cost per gallon is similar to the
CRMWD present cost to provide water.
Technical
To ensure safe and reliable drinking water, a mul-
tiple-barrier approach needs to ensure removal of
bacteria, as well as inactivate viruses and proto-
zoa, which are more resistant to disinfection treat-
ment. Other treatments must address endocrine
disruptors, pharmaceuticals, fuels, additives, etc.
Due to lack of regulation for some of these poten-
tial threats, and lack of historic data on large-scale
potable reuse projects, their approach was conser-
vative.
The treatment facility passed the water through
various treatment steps. The steps are membrane
filtration, reverse osmosis, and UV oxidation. At
each of these steps, residuals are diverted.
Impact
The Big Spring plant was the first of its kind in Texas,
and contributes approximately 2 million gallons of wa-
ter per day to the water supply. While this is a small
part of the total demand of the 500,000 people that
depend on the CRMWD for about 40 million gallons of
water per day, the plant helps diversify the water sup-
ply in an area where lakes and wells have been running
dry.
Big Spring Facts
Population 28,125
Land Area 19.2 square miles
Median Income $40,797 (2012)
Total Payroll $8,588,000 (2012)
Average Total Precipitation
19.45 inches per year (lowest of 0.60 in Dec, highest of 2.69 in Jun)
Historic Water Sources
Spring originally, currently E.B. Spence Reservoir and Lake J.B. Thomas
Average Demand Profile 258 gpcd (gallons per capita per day)
Housing Units 9,640
Indirect reuse for potable demand; treatment through membrane filtration,
reverse osmosis, advanced oxidation.
System Capacity 2.1 MGD (million gallons per day)
Alternatives Tried or Considered
Tapping from other reservoirs and wells (outside basin)
Energy Supply Profile
5.34 kWh/1000 gal. for reclamation versus 5.04 kWh/1000 gal. for pump-
ing/diversion.
Funding Colorado River Municipal Water District (CRMWD)
Timeline
Construction: Summer 2011
Operation: Spring of 2013
Social
Big Spring’s outreach/education consisted of a public
meeting and the development of informational fliers
and website. The turn-out at some of these meetings
was quite low, and the positive to neutral response may
have to be interpreted that way.

HOK Water Workshop
22
Case Study - St. Petersburg, FL
Background
St. Petersburg, Florida resides on the south eastern tip of the Pinellas Peninsula, bound by the Gulf of Mexico
and Tampa Bay. The city receives an annual rainfall of approximately 51 inches per year. The rainy season
comes in the hot summer months. Prior to the 1970s, St Petersburg primarily pulled its water from inland
well fields to the north that tap into the Floridian Aquifer. St. Petersburg currently has a duel water system:
A potable water system (from the regional utility, Tampa Bay Water) consisting of a blend of surface, ground,
and desalinated water, and a non-potable, “purple pipe” reclaimed water distribution system for irrigation pur-
poses. Excess reclaimed water is injected into a saline aquifer below the city. St. Petersburg runs the oldest
reclaimed water systems in the United States.
Today, the system treats the wastewater to advanced secondary standards and produces 37 MGD of waste
water effluent. 21 MGD is reused while the remainder is injected into the non-potable aquifer. More than 290
miles of distribution lines send reclaimed water to more than 10,000 residences, 6 golf courses, 95 parks,
64 schools, 335 commercial areas for irrigation, and 316 reclaimed water fire hydrants. Backflow preven-
tion assemblies were installed to safeguard the potable water supply.
Challenges
In the 1970s, extensive groundwater pumping result-
ed in salt water intrusion into the potable aquifer. With
the growth in population, less water and a growing de-
mand, St. Petersburg needed a way to augment their
water supply. The main purpose of the system was for
waste water disposal and irrigation. In 1977 the four
water reclamation facilities of the dual water system
came online. During periods of extensive rain and low
demand, the excess effluent is pumped into the saline
aquifer under the city with the hope that this would
create a freshwater bubble for later use. The city has
had issues with the quality of the water that is pulled
from the saline aquifer and above ground storage has
been implemented.

HOK Water Workshop
23
Policy
In the 1970s, new regulations in Florida on the re-
moval of nutrients prior to discharge into the Gulf
of Mexico and Tampa Bay were enacted. The cost
of tertiary treatment, filtration, and chlorination,
along with federal grants, made reclamation and
reuse an economically viable choice.
Funding
As of 2006, residences not on the “purple pipe”
system can pay the cost to extend distribution
lines to serve them. This typically costs $500 to
$1200 per customer. For the average consumer
(with a property under an acre) the City charges a
fixed rate of $19.68 a month for reclaimed water.
For potable water, St. Petersburg uses tiered rates.
An average household can save up to 17% in their
water bill.
St. Petersburg Facts
Population 249,688
Population Density 3,967 people/sq mi
Income Per Capita $28,742 (Pinellas County)
Historical Supply Floridian aquifers via Inland well fields
Average Demand Profile Domestic, Commercial, Light Industry
System
Duel Water System consisting of potable (managed by Tampa Bay Water) and
reclaimed non-potable (managed by city of St. Petersburg)
Volunteer Program for Irrigation, fire hydrants, public fountains
Year of Implementation 1977
Social
The city has done an extensive outreach and education program to inform the public of the safety of the
“purple pipe” system and to promote better conservation. To educate the public, St. Petersburg has done the
following:
• Held public forums that address water quality issues
• Produced booklets and videos on conservation
• Broadcast television messages weekly
• Created a website with conservation information
• Held annual public recognition awards and community events promoting reuse and conservation
• Taught water conservation programs in their schools.

HOK Water Workshop
24
Conversation with Russ
Why was the Nexus group formed?
This is truly an extraordinary time to be living and working in the Bay Area. We are at the center of a com-
munity of business, academic and government enterprises that are driving profound changes in the way we
live. This is a historically important movement enabled by advances in technology, communication, and the
creation of wealth.
This confluence of wealth and technology is complemented by a deeper appreciation of our global interdepen-
dence economically, environmentally, politically and educationally. The Bay Area is an interconnected brain
trust that is a wellspring for new ideas and ways of looking at the world. We understand that really creative
outcomes occur at the intersections between different disciplines, cultures, and generations. HOK strongly
supports bringing this very broad and diverse approach to design thinking. It’s not just what’s happening be-
tween the four walls at our firm. We want to draw in the global brain trust, and look for ways to achieve new
ground to build a better future together.
Why focus on water?
California is in the middle of a critical water shortage, of course, but managing this precious resource appro-
priately is really a major global issue. We have the technological ability to solve this problem, but not neces-
sarily alignment on the best way to use those technologies or fund implementation. Policies and behaviors
need to change too, but there is a combination of inertia and resistance that is difficult to overcome.
Diamonds are formed under pressure. Being threatened with not having enough of the fresh water essential
to our survival creates pressure! We are hoping to help apply that pressure to enable the social, political and
behavioral transformations necessary for sustainable management of this precious resource. Ten years ago
the social awareness and will to alter our patterns and beliefs just weren’t there. Right now we’re seeing all
that shifting - the technological and financial capabilities are converging with an awakened public, ready to
tackle this crisis. At HOK, we believe that we can be a catalyst for change. We can bring together the experts
and the community to really focus on this challenge. We want to help chart the course to a sustainable water
future both locally and globally.
HOK Water Workshop
24

HOK Water Workshop
25
Event Leader
Russ Drinker
HOK
H. Russell (Russ) Drinker is the Managing Director of the San Francisco office
and brings over 30 years of experience in architecture and planning. He provides
leadership on a broad range of large-scale, innovative, and technically challenging
projects with an emphasis on sustainable design. His portfolio is notable for its
globally recognized medical sciences, research and academic campuses, includ-
ing the Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise (CREATE)
project for the National Research Foundation in Singapore; the Princess Noura
bint Abdulrahman University, a new 32 million square foot campus with a 300 bed
hospital for 40,000 full-time female students, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; as well as
projects throughout the University of California system and Stanford University.
Russ has also led Master Planning projects for Chevron; United States Embassies
in Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, and Damascus; and a new Medical Sciences
campus for King Saud University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
How did you start down this road?
I read multiple articles in the national press about the water crisis in California – including stories about entire
communities threatened with extinction from the lack of potable water. The articles focused on drilling new
wells or piping water around, or the need for conservation, but completely ignored the potential of recycling
waste water and it really made me mad! Recycling is one of the most fundamental, and most overlooked,
methods we have to solve the global water crisis. To fail to understand such an important aspect of this
precious resource was just unacceptable. We want to help put a spotlight on recycling and change the story
being written.
25
HOK Water Workshop

HOK Water Workshop
26
Head Moderator
Josiah Cain
Sherwood
Design Engineers
Josiah Cain serves as Sherwood Design Engi-
neers’ Director of Innovation. A student of de-
sign, ecology, and technology, his deep sustain-
able design experience and multi-disciplinary
approach provide insight and opportunities for
optimization of site and structure.
Mr. Cain’s inherent drive for enhanced systems
performance and integration has led to first of
a kind permits in over a dozen jurisdictions; his
work has provided advancement in the areas of
rain harvesting, graywater, blackwater reuse,
living roofs and walls, native plants, sustainable
stormwater management, food systems, and
sustainable materials.
• What do you think is the greatest threat to our water supply?
Climate Change and Thermal Energy Production
• If you could partner with a specialist outside your discipline to explore
water who would that be and why?
Power Systems Engineer / Energy Commission; utilize 39% of fresh wa-
ter withdrawals nationwide and 25% of the power they generate is used
to power water infrastructure.
• If you could change one thing about our current water infrastructure,
what would that be and why?
Change to non-water consumptive energy infrastructure.
• What is the most beautiful aspect of water?
Self managing innate geometry of movement.
• Describe one old or forgotten idea about water for reconsideration.
Earth is the only place in the known universe where it occurs in a state
capable of human use.
• Share your water story.
I grew up on land straddling an undammed California Wild & Scenic
River that supported anadromous Salmon, Steelhead, and Pacific Lam-
prey, otters, turtles, bald eagles, and a variety of other wildlife. It was in
decline due to logging, agriculture, roads, and upstream impacts. The
watershed has suffered tremendously as the result of dam diversions
on the larger tributaries and the fishery has collapsed. Anadromous spe-
cies are no longer in the river and political fights continue.
Steve Morton
HOK
Regional Leader of
Planning
Mr. Morton has over 30 years of experience
involving comprehensive consulting assign-
ment efforts for corporate, higher education,
institutional, research and development, and
private sector clients. These projects have fo-
cused upon value-added strategic and physical
planning solutions forming a basis for the iden-
tification of scenario options, capital projects,
asset utilization, and successful implementa-
tion strategies. His role frequently focuses on
leading participatory processes with complex
client groups and technical consulting teams.
Guest Moderator

HOK Water Workshop
27
Needless waste which can be addressed with broader implementation of
various sustainable water-use practices.
A large urban municipal water utility
Avail ourselves of more extensive & effective re-use and recycling
Marc earned his Bachelor of Architecture
from Arizona State in 1984. While practicing
as an architect in Arizona until 1992, he was
convinced that his professional passion was
geared more toward leading a firm’s business
and operations. He earned his MBA with the
Advanced Management Institute of Architec-
ture and Engineering (AMI) in San Francisco in
1999. Marc’s career now focuses on project
management and operations in the built envi-
ronment. He is well known in the industry as a
leader in management best practices.
recipient of the prestigious 2013 Progressive
Architecture Award.
Marc is a member of the AIA, and involved with
the Association of AE Business Leaders (AEBL)
a local leadership organization which helps pro-
mote business best practice in the natural and
built environments.
Marc Arnold
HOK
Director of Operations
Brian Jencek
HOK
Reg Design Ldr of
Planning & Landscape
Brian Jencek is the design leader of planning
and landscape architecture for the global de-
sign studio HOK. Prior to joining HOK, Brian
served as the Managing and Design Principal
of Hargreaves Associates. Brian’s experience
spans numerous award-winning projects na-
tionally and abroad, including Stanford Univer-
sity’s leading-edge Science and Engineering
Campus, Oklahoma City’s iconic American Indi-
an Cultural Center Park, and visionary city plans
along the waterfronts of Panama, Brazil, China,
and India. Educated as a Landscape Architect
and Architect, Brian is active professionally and
academically with the ASLA, ULI, and Clinton
Climate Initiative and teaches graduate level
design studios on the topics of climate change
and resiliency at UC Berkeley.
Lynn Filar
HOK
Technical Principal
Consistent adequacy and quality due to reliance on seasonal rainfall and
aquifer.
A hydrologist – I’ve never worked with one before, even on planning proj-
ects, and I think the expertise would be transformative.
Focusing locally on highest and best use in the water use cascade. In-
vestment in infrastructure and systems to manage water at a district
scale that are costly, and consequently slow to upgrade to more efficient
strategies.
• What is the most beautiful aspect of water?
The patterns and forms created by the movement of water shaping the
landscape at all scales, from the patterns in the sand in a creek bed after
a rainstorm, to the view of a river delta from a satellite.
• Describe one old or forgotten idea about water for reconsideration.
Access to fresh water used to be the driver for development and growth
of cities.
• Share your water story.
I have been drawn to water my whole life. Coincidentally, my name,
Lynn, means “Dwells by the lake, or torrent”. My last two homes have
been located adjacent to creeks, and I have been both soothed by the
music of the water in the summer months, and awed by the roar in the
winter in spring.
Lynn Filar has been with HOK for 28 years. She
is the technical principal of HOK’s San Fran-
cisco office and has led many of HOK’s most
successful justice and non-justice projects –
such as the award winning Richard E. Arnason
Justice Center and the San Mateo Sheriff’s
Forensic Lab and Coroner’s Office. As Princi-
pal-in-Charge, she will be actively engaged in
all aspects of project programming, planning,
design, documentation and delivery. Lynn is
renowned for timely and thorough responses
and effective resolution of any client concerns.
She has earned a reputation with her clients as
a thoughtful listener, trusted partner, genuine
collaborator and a true “win/win” problem solver.
HOK Moderators

Water Crisis Workshop

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Water Crisis Workshop

Similar to Water Crisis Workshop (20)

Water Crisis Workshop