Justin's Podcast
Water Safety, Regulation, and Innovation with Darcy Burke
What if the cost of providing clean drinking water is becoming too high for communities to bear? This episode features Darcy Burke, an elected member of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and a leading authority in water management. We explore the revolutionary advancements in water detection technology over the last decade and discuss the significant regulatory and financial hurdles that come with these improvements. Darcy offers an inside look at how water districts are tackling the disposal of hazardous materials and the aging workforce problem, and she shares innovative strategies to attract new talent to the industry.
Can we really achieve zero-contaminant water at a reasonable cost? Darcy and I examine the shift from human studies to computer models in determining safe contaminant levels and question the practicality of absolute purity in drinking water. We also address the disparities in regulation between tap water and bottled water, emphasizing why tap water often surpasses bottled water in safety standards. With a focus on maintaining public health credibility, we argue for reasonable standards and reliable data to ensure that communities have access to safe and affordable water, reducing the risk of turning to unsafe sources.
PFAS and lead pipes are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to water contamination issues. Darcy delves into her extensive background in waterworks, highlighting the critical role of toxicologists and water quality engineers in managing these persistent problems. From the financial burdens of upgrading water treatment plants to the importance of effective communication with the public, we discuss the monumental efforts required to ensure sustainable and safe water service. Join us for this insightful conversation, and don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and review our podcast!
What if the cost of providing clean drinking water is becoming too high for communities to bear? This episode features Darcy Burke, an elected member of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and a leading authority in water management. We explore the revolutionary advancements in water detection technology over the last decade and discuss the significant regulatory and financial hurdles that come with these improvements. Darcy offers an inside look at how water districts are tackling the disposal of hazardous materials and the aging workforce problem, and she shares innovative strategies to attract new talent to the industry.
Can we really achieve zero-contaminant water at a reasonable cost? Darcy and I examine the shift from human studies to computer models in determining safe contaminant levels and question the practicality of absolute purity in drinking water. We also address the disparities in regulation between tap water and bottled water, emphasizing why tap water often surpasses bottled water in safety standards. With a focus on maintaining public health credibility, we argue for reasonable standards and reliable data to ensure that communities have access to safe and affordable water, reducing the risk of turning to unsafe sources.
PFAS and lead pipes are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to water contamination issues. Darcy delves into her extensive background in waterworks, highlighting the critical role of toxicologists and water quality engineers in managing these persistent problems. From the financial burdens of upgrading water treatment plants to the importance of effective communication with the public, we discuss the monumental efforts required to ensure sustainable and safe water service. Join us for this insightful conversation, and don’t forget to subscribe, rate, and review our podcast!
Welcome to Interesting People, the podcast where we delve into the lives and stories of fascinating individuals from all walks of life. I'm your host, justin Wallen. In each episode, we bring you inspiring, thought-provoking and sometimes surprising interviews with people who are making an impact in their fields and communities. There's only one common thread that the world is more interesting because of them. Get ready to be inspired, entertained and enlightened as we spotlight the extraordinary. Let's dive in. We're here to talk water.
Speaker 1:So, to that end, absolutely, I'm here with my good friend and colleague, darcy Burke, who was elected to the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District in 2018 and reelected in 2022. In 2023, she was appointed to the US EPA's Local Government Advisory Committee and is, of course, president Executive Officer of Watermark Associates, a highly regarded comprehensive business consulting firm. Ms Burke received her bachelor's degree from Mount St Mary's University of Los Angeles in International Economics and Marketing, as well as her master's in Business Administration, a fellow MBA, with an emphasis in organizational leadership. So she's the co-host of the popular we Grow California podcast, which I have been fortunate enough to be on, and, darcy, it's terrific to have you here today.
Speaker 2:Well, thank you, justin. It's great to be here and I love to talk about water, so you picked my favorite topic.
Speaker 1:Well, you've got EPA in California and of course there's water and there's California water, correct? So how has the world of water changed over the past decade and, really kind of, what are the biggest hurdles that professionals are facing delivering this need of clean, reliable water, and what's on the horizon for the next decade?
Speaker 2:So I think two things have changed. So technology has advanced significantly over the last 10 years. So we can detect more things at a lower level. And I'm just going to say, just because you can detect it doesn't necessarily mean you can treat it or should have to treat it, doesn't necessarily mean it's bad, it just means you can find it. Find it, but from a regulatory standpoint, regulators love to. If you can detect it at the lowest level, therefore you must have to treat it at the lowest level. So in the last 10 years regulations have snowballed to very low levels, which means high cost of treatment.
Speaker 2:So water is getting more expensive and that's really impact a lot of our communities that just can't afford it. And those treatment costs, not only have they gone up significantly, but the output like what do you do with what you've taken out? Right, they're hazardous, where do you put them, how do you dispose of them safely? How does that impact our environment Is a whole other thing that we haven't really, I think, mastered.
Speaker 2:Or even the EPA doesn't necessarily have a plan for Like take it all out, but they haven't really told us how to dispose of it properly, and I and I see that as another issue, so that's one thing. Regulatory impacts of just significant, and then the treatment costs so that's one thing. And then, as as an industry, we're aging, so all that experience is walking out the door and we have not done a great job about making water a sexy, viable, want to go into it industry. So we need to do a much better job about recruiting people, about being more innovative on how we make water more affordable and not using the same answers we did 10 years ago to solve the problems we have today.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and with that detectable, traceable amounts of whatever it might be, the assumption is there that whatever might be in water that is potentially dangerous, there's no tolerance for any of it, which you had mentioned earlier. Right, but there's a tension there, of course, between delivering reliable and affordable water. I mean, at some point we have to have something to drink. We've got to have liquid With safety and the resilience of our bodies to handle certain amounts of potentially toxic items, bodies to handle certain amounts of potentially toxic items how does that? Is it really getting to a point now where that balance? It sounds like it is being tilted in the direction of impracticality. The goal is always health, but to what degree are our bodies able to consume a certain amount of particulate?
Speaker 2:I'm so glad you brought bodies into this equation. So back in the day, when I first got into water, when you had a contaminant, a candidate to be a contaminant, let's just say that there was significant amount of testing and study done on that contaminant, meaning they would take a population that was exposed to that contaminant at certain levels and they would study it over time, right? So naturally present things like we all know arsenic's bad for you, but at what level is it dangerous for you? Right? So they would study this population over time. Because the body is an amazing thing, right. It can absorb some things, it can dispose of some things, it can adapt to some things.
Speaker 2:And they don't really do it that way. They model it on computers. Now. So when they say oh it's, you know, safe, it's not safe at any level, or it's safe at this extremely low level, I question that, because the body is not a computer model and zero is not a realistic number. It's just not realistic if we're going to make it affordable and there has to be some balance there.
Speaker 2:So, generally speaking, when you look at how much water is on your water bill and that's a whole other conversation, because it's very difficult to tell really how much water is on your water bill because it's in water speak you're looking at maybe 3 lot of people because they don't trust the water or for convenience, or because bottled water companies have made it very wonderful and fabulous to drink bottled water. They're not drinking their tap water so I'm treating it to the lowest levels possible and then they're using something that is bottled at such a different level of quality it's not even comparable and I mean such a lower level of quality. So tap water is regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. It is the safest drinking water in the world here in the United States. It is the safest drinking water in the world.
Speaker 2:Here in the United States, bottled water is regulated by the FDA. They are the same people that regulate the rat parts in hot dogs. To give you some comparison To touch water at a water treatment plant and a distribution system, that individual has to have education, has to take a state certification exam because it's public health. I don't know what type of requirements are required for education at the FDA for people to bottle water and a lot of that bottled water. They take the chlorine out, the disinfection, the part that keeps you safe, and then put it in a bottle and serve it right. Most of the time you put it in some type of refrigeration and that's why you like it, because it's cold. So there's so many things about taste and preferences and convenience that have nothing to do with quality or public health and safety.
Speaker 1:To navigate that as a water professional, how do you introduce that to the conversation, Not saying you're necessarily arguing one way or another, but introduce that as a factor that should be discussed without serious consideration to your reputation, right? How do you avoid being branded as an apologist for past bad, you know bad choices made, whether that's at a former Air Force base and dumped a bunch of jet fuel out and it's contaminating the groundwater, whatever it might be? I mean, we're human beings living in a complex world and there's a lot of complex stuff that ends up trickling into these water supplies. How do you introduce that conversation of weighing practicality in the context and the lens of public health?
Speaker 2:So I think, first of all, it really helps to have good data for those that really want to have a reasonable conversation. So one of the things that water districts or cities or even you know, I'll say, private water companies still have to meet the same water quality standards. Whether they're, you know, they have stockholders, or they are public and you elect your water officials, they all have to meet standards that are very strenuous. So there's testing that goes on, there's treatment that goes on, or purification that goes on to deliver safe, reliable water. I think the conversation has to be what is reasonable, not that what is zero is ideal. We would love zero. What do I do when the person can't afford water? So they're going to go to a local creek or, in my jurisdiction, lake Elsinore and bucket that water and that's what they're going to serve their kids. That's not okay, right, because they can't afford water. So I really think it's about being reasonable and getting experts that you know and trust. So I'm very fortunate, justin. You know me a long time Before I was elected in water.
Speaker 2:I worked in water. I worked for American Waterworks Association. I ran the California Nevada section. They're the organization that sets the standards for drinking water across the world. I worked for Metropolitan Water District. I worked for Municipal Water District of Orange County before I went out and started my own consulting business.
Speaker 2:So water's my background, having resources like to a toxicologist or a water quality engineer or someone that runs a lab or someone that specializes in algae, that has their education and can talk in people speak not really technical about what this compound, this contaminant, may do to you. So let's talk about something we all know that will make you sick. Arsenic will make you sick. Arsenic will kill you. Nobody's ever going to argue that. Arsenic will kill you. Nobody's ever going to argue that.
Speaker 2:But the contaminant du jour right now is PFOS or PFOA or all these things. They're the forever chemical. The military used them in firefighting foam. So did firemen. They are in my lipstick, they're in my foundation, they're in my Teflon pans, they're in my waterproof clothing, they're in my carpet. They're in the air. They're in my Teflon pans, they're in my waterproof clothing, they're in my carpet, they're in the air. They're everywhere. Water districts across the country now have to treat their water so that it's four parts per trillion. What does that mean? Right? I want you to all think of the Great Salt Lake. It's like four teaspoons in the Great Salt Lake.
Speaker 1:It's astonishing and, to put it in context, I mean there's someone who would listen and say, well, all right. But I mean, is there something that deadly that four teaspoons would contaminate the Great Salt Lake so that if we all walked up and took a glass of water at it, we'd fall down dead, hemorrhaging from every oar of this?
Speaker 2:So they say that your exposure through drinking water to PFAS is about 20%. So if you loved microwave popcorn and you had it every day, the concentration of that is like 5,000 parts per trillion in a microwave bag. So all those popcorn particles I think the water part is benign. Now, in high concentration PFAS can cause cancer high concentrations Four parts per trillion is an incredibly low amount, even over a lifetime.
Speaker 1:So if there's that much concern about something and it's highly dispersed, pardon me how do you stack up that threat or the regulations surrounding what is seen as that threat by government in juxtaposition to something that we deal with every day in a lot of cities around the country and that's drinking water still delivered by a lot of lead pipe networks and it's not something that's really thought about a lot? My intent is not to cry wolf and say that we're all going to drop dead about it, but if you were to stack one against the other, fix the lead pipe.
Speaker 2:Fix the lead pipe, no question about it. Put the money at the lead pipe and not just the pipe In water we call it appurtenances but other things like your faucets. Right, if you're in an older home and you have lead pipe, what's your faucet?
Speaker 1:It's the whole thing right. See, that's fascinating. I remember you mentioned that to me and I'd never thought about that. If you have an old house, even back to the 60s, you're likely to have in your faucets those beautiful faucets. Or if you're lucky enough to have those nickel-plated ones from the 20s and 30s, they're plating lead and that's not a good thing.
Speaker 2:They may be aesthetically beautiful, but probably toxic.
Speaker 1:Yeah, right.
Speaker 2:But also, if you're in an older home we have to look at yeah, yeah, just be the pipe. So, yes, you're exposed to that. But the water districts now are required to go into the service line, which is something we've never done. We've never gone past the meter. This is a new regulation, the lead service replacement regulation, which means we've gone past the meter, now into the house, to make sure that that whole process, that whole distribution is not lead. But if we're taking a new lead service line and we're connecting it to a lead faucet, what good are we doing?
Speaker 1:And is that national or just California?
Speaker 2:That's national.
Speaker 1:Oh, wow.
Speaker 2:So in California we don't have hardly any lead, thank goodness, but my good friend Gary Brown in Detroit and Flint Michigan he is changing like 10,000 lead service lines a year and he's going to be doing it for a very long time at a very high cost and he's going to run out of money Now. So far he has not detected PFAS. But can you imagine if he has Right and if your customers can't afford to pay for it? You will hear a lot, especially from your neighborhood, justin. Oh, we gave you all this money in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act. We gave you all this money in all these other acts. It's not enough money.
Speaker 2:So you will hear that there's billions of dollars available for PFAS removal. I'll use PFAS because it's it's just on top of my mind right now. I think it was 10 billion. Let's say it's 8 billion. I can't remember Michigan alone did an assessment or Minnesota alone. It was 14 billion just for that state, when you think of all the small systems that have not even tested yet for it because they weren't required to test, and it's everywhere. So if you have waterproof clothing and you started washing your clothes and all that water went to a wastewater plant and then it went out into the environment, all that PFAS is out in the environment water plant and then it went out into the environment. All that PFAS is out in the environment. It's everywhere.
Speaker 2:The other thing that I think I want people to know is at my last local government advisory committee in Washington DC, the Office of Chemical I want to make sure I get this right. I actually wrote it down because it was an interesting I wasn't aware of this office Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and they actually approve chemical compounds. In the United States they approve a new PFAS compound every single day coming into the market and the answer was well, we can't make the risk safety argument, that we can't let them into the market. But you just told me I have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to take it out. So there's some disconnect right between what's safe and really it scares people. Right?
Speaker 2:You tell people this is terrible, you need to take it out of your water. You mandate that the water utilities send people letters. This is not safe, they cannot serve it. This is the level we recommend and it's way above. We were super fortunate in ours we had other sources so we could switch supply. Not everybody has that. People don't trust their water and they don't trust their water district or they don't trust their water officials. We've done that to ourselves, because we have to tell them all the time oh, we had a problem, oh it's not safe. It is safe, your drinking water is safe. There are certain places in the country it's not, but for most of the places in the United States your drinking water is safe.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and how do you message that if they're entirely different standards, by which, like for example, like we just used, of approving manufacture of a chemical that is right now highly regulated, there's extreme legislation or regulation about cleaning it out of existing environments? If those standards are completely disparate, how do you message, as a water professional, as someone who's on your board, member of a water district that delivers water to people's homes and businesses, how do you communicate that in a way that people understand it and it's relevant and it's relative to this is what exists. This is safety, without having everybody just switch off the taps and not use it for drinking. Well, so for us again, very fortunate to have other sources, this is safety without having everybody just switch off the taps and not use it for drinking.
Speaker 2:Well, so for us again, very fortunate to have other sources. So the other sources I have have no PFAS in them, right, so taking it off, and it's for their health and safety. I think the part that made me crazy maybe crazier than I normally am was California's standard was five parts per trillion, and then the United States was five parts per trillion, and then the United States was four parts per trillion and nobody could give me the health benefit of that one part per trillion. The cost difference for me, that one different number, is in the tens of millions of dollars, because I had other treatment options already that could blend and meet that, five that no longer work to meet four. So it's a huge difference. But we're going to take things offline when they don't meet the minimum health standards.
Speaker 1:Well, and you mentioned that you have the ability to blend and to change sources. What happens to those water sources that don't meet the cut, that just simply have to turn off and not use? Where do they go?
Speaker 2:They have to deliver bottled water which don't meet minimum drinking water standards. If you were to test them, Is that just simply.
Speaker 1:whatever that water source was is just simply no longer usable until it's treated to an extremely high standard at that point, well, whatever that input is Typically, that's what they have to do At that point.
Speaker 2:Well, whatever that input is, typically that's what they have to do. They have to let people know that it's according, it does not meet the standard, the drinking water standard, and that if they want an alternate source of drinking water, usually that public utility has to provide bottled water as a source. Or in some cases, in some states, they will let you use what they call a point of use. So it's a filter like you put on your faucet, like a Brita filter or something like that at your faucet, that can remove it. But then the homeowner is responsible for what are you going to do with that filter when you take it off and you have to Replace it? That's the biggest problem I always see with point of use. People put it on and leave it and forget it, right Until there's another problem like Legionnaire's disease or something with that filter.
Speaker 2:So there's so many things that can go wrong because homeowners are not designed to be treatment operators to think about that and it just erodes the trust. And it just erodes the trust. And for a smaller system or a smaller community the cost is huge. And I'll give you an example. In my water utility we serve about I'm just going to use rounder numbers 160,000 people. Our surface water treatment plant. We are the only surface water reservoir in the state of California that has PFAS contamination and we are downstream of an Air Force Base there you go, so we know where it came from.
Speaker 2:We were originally going to upgrade this plant. It was built in the 60s so it needed an upgrade and that cost was about $30 million, $24, $30 million. When we realized we were going to add a different technology and then the PFAS treatment originally, then we got to 40. Then when we actually did a pilot study and realized that what typically works to remove PFAS in groundwater, which is a granulated activated carbon filter system, didn't work on our water solely. We had to also add a resin, an ion exchange resin. So every time I say add, think more dollars.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:What was once like a $40 million project is a $100 million project today, within three years, and the estimated operating expense is four times what it was five years ago. What do you think that's going to do to bills?
Speaker 1:Yeah, because it's not paid for by the Fed. It's not paid for by something else? No, or the polluter or the manufacturer.
Speaker 2:It's paid for by people who live in the community that need safe, clean, reliable water.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's astonishing that need safe, clean, reliable water. Yeah, it's astonishing. How. So when you do that there's, how are you communicating that to ratepayers when they have to hear bad news? How does that work, so that folks?
Speaker 2:aren't showing up at pitchforks. It's so funny. You brought that word up because I hate that word. Ratepayers the ratepayers yeah, I don't have ratepayers. It's a terrible. You brought that word up because I hate that word Rate payers. I don't have rate payers. It's a terrible word. It really is.
Speaker 1:And I should be hit over the head for using it, because you're right, they're customers, not rate payers. Rate payers sounds, it almost sounds Soviet right.
Speaker 2:It means you don't have a choice. It sounds like all I care about is that they pay their bill, right, yeah?
Speaker 1:exactly.
Speaker 2:Tell me they're customers. It really goes back to a value proposition. What value? What am I providing to my community? And I like to say a lot of times our job is water reliability, so you go to the tap and it turns on, but our responsibility is public health. So if you live in Southern California or a large metropolitan area and you're listening to this, I figure, in a larger hospital in your area, a doctor in a hospital could probably kill about five people before staff would be alarmed that something was really wrong, especially if there's multiple floors. A treatment plant operator in a large metropolitan area for Southern California could kill 19 million people in a day. Let's give you some impact to that right. So when we say it's public health, it's public health, which is why they're required to have education. And they have to take state tests, and it's not easy. And they have to take continuing education so they know what's happening all the time. And it's not easy. And they have to take continuing education so they know what's happening all the time.
Speaker 2:I never call it a water bill, I call it a water service bill and a wastewater service bill. I don't deliver water, I deliver water service Because the water in and of itself is inexpensive for the most part. When we have a drought or a regulatory restriction and I have to buy water on the market, that's a different story, but usually the water itself is inexpensive. It's the energy, the chemicals, the expertise to get it to the house. And it's really about what am I providing to my community? I'm providing service in a way that our community can thrive and flourish. It can be safe and healthy, not just the people, but the community, the environment, because I need to take care of my wastewater too in a responsible way.
Speaker 2:Nobody really appreciates sewer service till. It doesn't work. You know, when your toilet backs up, everybody's like, oh my gosh, what's wrong? Right, so, and I don't really appreciate when I see utilities that don't participate as part of the community and we have to be part of the difficult decisions and and and conversations. So we provide water service so that our communities can thrive and flourish and our economy. If there's no water, there's no jobs. There's no water, there's no wine. There's no water, there's no beer. You can get along, you know, without air for half a second, without water, three days, without energy. It's not happy, it's not comfortable, but you can get along for a while, so you know it's really about how do you fit into the greater picture. So what are they paying for? And they're they're paying for public health.
Speaker 1:To communicate that so that people understand it. Is that something that can be done at the point of, like I say, crisis Crisis could be part of it but I mean at the point when you're doing an ask let's put it that way when you got to go out and you have to ask to raise rates. We're doing this, we got to do it and we want to make sure you understand it and are comfortable with it. There's an obvious education, public education component there, or an opportunity? Is that only when it should be done?
Speaker 2:No opportunity Is that only when it should be done. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. All day, every day, frequently, all the time. Just, we've had this conversation all the time.
Speaker 2:Water directors and I'll throw my own under the bus we're terrible about that, you know they only want to talk to you. They do a lot of outreach. When it's there, it's required, like they need you to conserve. We spent a ton of money not to buy our product and then we raise your rates because you didn't buy our product, Cause our rate structure set up that we can't cover our fixed costs unless you buy our product, which that's a whole other podcast.
Speaker 2:You really, as an utility or a service provider, have to be talking about your value proposition all the time, letting people in under the tent, showing them what you do, giving tours, letting them see what's going on. I'm really hopeful that, although our treatment plan is kind of difficult to get to, that we're able to show people what their money's buying. This is their treatment plan. They're paying for it. It's not my treatment plant, it's their treatment plant. This is their investment in their future and for their children, because it's going to serve generations. Water's not the for now business, it's the forever business. Our infrastructure usually lasts 50 to 100 years, so that investment is going to go a long way. But if you're only waiting to tell people what you're spending their money on until when you need to ask for more money, you're doing it all wrong. And if you wait to ask for more money at night after they worked all day during the week and it's a technical presentation by a CFO or an engineer Epic failure.
Speaker 1:I can imagine that. How do you make this world, which is constantly changing and has huge challenges, right? There's not just that tension between cost and complexity of delivering clean water, but a lot of other items as well. What leaps to my mind is how do you convince people that you can to allow utility to enter and inspect their home? It's one thing to be outside, but it's another thing to be inside. How do you convince? You say the professionals are aging. That's one of the biggest challenges facing the industry. How do you convince those who are younger that this actually does have interesting problems worth resolving, that it will be an engaging career? How does that change over time?
Speaker 2:You know what's the first thing we always talk about. Just know your audience, right. So in the old days when I started, most people came to the utility to work because they wanted a steady government job.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's the stereotype, right? That's the benefit. Steady government job. I'm going to do my time, do well, it's pleasant, and then I retire.
Speaker 2:And it's steady, there's like no change. Water could not be more different than that now for the most part ever. I think we need to think differently. I know we do, so one of the things that, for our utility, that we're doing is really, who are the group of people that have the talents we need that know nothing about us? So let's take cybersecurity.
Speaker 2:It's a huge issue right now for water utilities. We've not typically reached out to that segment to say, hey, we're here, we need your help. To say, hey, we're here, we need your help, we need to court them, we need to let them know we're here. We need to let them know we're a viable option, that they don't just need to work for you know Apple or Microsoft or Northrop Grumman or whatever, but that a water utility can be just as exciting. And you know and talk about being on the front lines. We get attacked every day and we know we do because we have a very robust cybersecurity. But it's not anymore like, well, I have a nephew and I can bring him in and we're not doing that anymore. We are now looking at what are the best and brightest. Where are they, where do we go find them and how do we court them? That takes an extraordinary change. It's like a recruiting strategy.
Speaker 1:Yeah, but it takes a remarkable change because it's the ingrained stereotype, however inaccurate it is, is there and it takes a concerted effort, and I imagine that's something that again not unlike messaging to rate payers needs to be done.
Speaker 2:Customers.
Speaker 1:Just said it again. You did. I'm going to get.
Speaker 2:You're going to kill me next time I see you, I'm just going to. It's like the swear jar.
Speaker 1:Customers, clients, customers.
Speaker 2:Yes, absolutely it's okay.
Speaker 1:It's horrible. There's another thing, though. You have to communicate that over time, right, because you have to change your brand to everyone so that those who are emerging into their professional careers not only consider, but actually are attracted to it. It's within their top three considerations of what do I want to do when I'm 25, and 26 and 27.
Speaker 2:I also think that, as a director myself, I am out there everywhere. I can't say that for everyone. Some people aren't comfortable doing that. Some people just do what they always do, which is when they're running. You see them everywhere, right? That's never been my mantra. I literally am everywhere and I want to be everywhere because I want people to have access to have their questions answered, because water is too important and really water relates to everything, whether it's the Chamber of Commerce, whether it's Rotary, whether it's, you know, my local parish, whatever it is, water needs to be part of the conversation.
Speaker 2:My local community college, when you look at all the different schools engineering, well, yes, obviously. The trades, 100%. Communications yes, we have a whole PR firm or team. Right, legal water law are you kidding me? You'll be busy forever and whiskey's for drinking and water's for fighting. So if you're a litigator, that's even better. Accounting finance we have big capital projects we have to finance. So there's not one part of a college, except for maybe dance and drama, that doesn't have a place in water. And even then, when we do education for children, sometimes we do that through the arts, definitely through painting and photography and essays. So I'm trying to think of one part, one school in our local community college that doesn't have a tie into what we do, and we're trying to get more involved so that they think oh yeah, we're not just there, you know, to hand out tchotchkes. We're there to be a partner in your education and we want you to think about coming to work for us.
Speaker 1:One last thing what changes that are big in the next decade that you see coming down the pike for water?
Speaker 2:I think affordability is the biggest one. We're going to have to think of different ways we pay for this, and I think that scares a lot of existing boards because we can't pay for some and not others because the way, at least in California, our rate structure's done. So we're going to have to think differently and I think technology is going to take us to a whole new level on how we manage our water. I also think one more thing is collaboration. We are fiefdoms by design. We have district boundaries and if we don't start working better together, we're all going to fail.
Speaker 1:Darcy Burke. Thank you so very, very much. You've been absolutely wonderful, as always. Terrific having you on.
Speaker 2:Thank you, justin, this was great.
Speaker 1:Thank you for tuning in to Interesting People. I hope you enjoyed today's episode. If you liked what you heard, be sure to subscribe, rate and review the podcast on your favorite platform, and don't forget to follow us on social media for updates and behind-the-scenes content. I'm Justin Wallen, and until next time, remember that the world is more interesting with you in it.