Bod Final

REGULAR MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY
18700 Ward Street, Board Room, Fountain Valley, California
July 17, 2019, 8:30 a.m.
AGENDA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENTS/PARTICIPATION
At this time, members of the public will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning items
within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board. Members of the public may also address the Board
about a particular Agenda item at the time it is considered by the Board and before action is taken. If the
item is on the Consent Calendar, please inform the Board Secretary before action is taken on the
Consent Calendar and the item will be removed for separate consideration.
The Board requests, but does not require, that members of the public who want to address the Board
complete a voluntary “Request to be Heard” form available from the Board Secretary prior to the meeting.
ITEMS RECEIVED TOO LATE TO BE AGENDIZED

Determine need and take action to agendize items(s) which arose subsequent to the posting of the
Agenda. (ROLL CALL VOTE: Adoption of this recommendation requires a two-thirds vote of the Board
members present, or, if less than two-thirds of the Board members are present, a unanimous vote of
those members present.)
ITEMS DISTRIBUTED TO THE BOARD LESS THAN 72 HOURS PRIOR TO MEETING

Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.5, non-exempt public records that relate to open session
agenda items and are distributed to a majority of the Board less than seventy-two (72) hours prior to the
meeting will be available for public inspection in the lobby of the District’s business office located at 18700
Ward Street, Fountain Valley, California 92708, during regular business hours. When practical, these
public records will also be made available on the District’s Internet Web site, accessible at
http://www.mwdoc.com.
NEXT RESOLUTION NO. 2088

CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 to 8)
(All matters under the Consent Calendar will be approved by one motion unless a Board
member requests separate action on a specific item)
1. MINUTES
a. June 3, 2019 Special Board Meeting
b. June 5, 2019 Workshop Board Meeting
c. June 5, 2019 Special Board Meeting
d. June 19, 2019 Regular Board Meeting
Recommendation: Approve as presented.
Page 1 of 213
Regular Meeting Agenda July 17, 2019
2. COMMITTEE MEETING REPORTS

a. Planning & Operations Committee Meeting: June 3, 2019
b. Administration & Finance Committee Meeting: June 12, 2019
c. Public Affairs & Legislation Committee Meeting: June 17, 2019
d. Executive Committee Meeting: June 20, 2019
Recommendation: Receive and file as presented.
3. TREASURER'S REPORTS
a. MWDOC Revenue/Cash Receipt Register as of June 30, 2019
b. MWDOC Disbursement Registers (June/July)
Recommendation: Ratify and approve as presented.
c. Summary of Cash and Investment and Portfolio Master Summary Report

(Cash and Investment report) as of May 31, 2019
d. PARS Monthly Statement (OPEB Trust)
e. Water Use Efficiency Projects Cash Flow
4. FINANCIAL REPORT
a. Combined Financial Statements and Budget Comparative for the Period
ending May 31, 2019
5. PRESSURE REGULATING VALVE REPLACEMENT PILOT PROGRAM
Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into professional

services agreements with EcoTech Services, Inc. and Large
Plumbing to provide pressure regulating valve testing and
replacement services at a cost not to exceed $249,850.
6. AWARD CONTRACT FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONER

REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Recommendation: Approve entering into the subject agreement for replacement of

the MWDOC administration building computer room air
conditioner: (1) Make a CEQA finding that the project is
categorically exempt under: Class 1-Existing Facilities; and (2)
Award ACCO Engineered Systems “MWDOC Computer Room
Air Conditioner Replacement Project” contract in the amount of
$75,818.00 (including providing and installing dedicated VAV
Zone box with ALC controls for computer room) plus 10%
contingency.
2 Page 2 of 213
7. AWARD OF CONSULTING CONTRACT FOR MEMBER AGENCY COMPLIANCE

WITH THE AMERICA’S WATER INFRASTRUCTURE ACT (AWIA)
Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to: (1) Enter into a consulting
contract with Herndon Solutions Group (HSG) in the estimated
amount of, and not to exceed $4.4 million (costs are contingent
upon final Participating Agency commitments and include a
10% contingency for Phases 2 & 3).
a. Phase 1 - $412,000
b. Phase 2 - $2,289,000
c. Phase 3 - $1,685,000
(2) Enter into Letter Agreements or Contracts with up to 28
of our participating agencies (including two of the three cities)
for cost recovery of the expenditures; (3) Authorize MWDOC’s
commitment to the AWIA process at an estimated cost of
$131,000 (includes the 10% contingency), with combined funds
from engineering, WEROC and finance to be provided; and (4)
Hire a part-time temporary position within WEROC to
coordinate the consultant’s efforts with Participating Agencies.
Position will be charged back to participating agencies.
8. MESA WATER DISTRICT’S REQUEST FOR CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS

TECHNICAL CONSULTING AND ADVISORY ASSISTANCE FOR THE BURIED
UTILITIES COALITION (BUC) TO RESPOND TO POTENTIAL NEW SCAQMD
REGULATIONS
Recommendation: Authorize contribution of $20,000 to Mesa Water towards

funding efforts related to the BUC for advocacy pertaining to
the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD)
Proposed Amended Rule (PAR) 1403 regarding asbestos.
End Consent Calendar
DISCUSSION ITEM
9. POLICY DISCUSSION REGARDING CONDUCTING INVOCATIONS AT BOARD

MEETINGS
Recommendation: Discuss and decide whether to conduct invocations at Board

meetings.
3 Page 3 of 213
ACTION ITEMS
10-1 LEGISLATION BEING DRAFTED BY CONGRESSMAN MIKE LEVIN ON

FUNDING SUPPORT FOR BRACKISH AND OCEAN DESALINATION PROJECTS
Recommendation: Adopt a “support in concept” position for Congressman Levin’s

legislative language for funding support for brackish and ocean
desalination projects while waiting to see the final wording
outcome of any legislation that moves forward, particularly on
the use of renewable energy
INFORMATION CALENDAR (All matters under the Information Calendar will be

Received/Filed as presented following any discussion that may occur)
11. GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT, JULY 2019 (ORAL AND WRITTEN)
Recommendation: Receive and file report(s) as presented.
12. MWDOC GENERAL INFORMATION ITEMS
a. Board of Directors - Reports re: Conferences and Meetings

b. Requests for Future Agenda Topics
CLOSED SESSION
13. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Title: General Manager
Government Code Section 54957(b)(1)
ADJOURNMENT
Note: Accommodations for the Disabled. Any person may make a request for a disability-related
modification or accommodation needed for that person to be able to participate in the public meeting by
contacting Maribeth Goldsby, District Secretary, at (714) 963-3058, or writing to Municipal Water District
of Orange County at P.O. Box 20895, Fountain Valley, CA 92728. Requests must specify the nature of
the disability and the type of accommodation requested. A telephone number or other contact
information should be included so that District staff may discuss appropriate arrangements. Persons
requesting a disability-related accommodation should make the request with adequate time before the
meeting for the District to provide the requested accommodation.
4 Page 4 of 213
Item No. 1a
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING

OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
June 3, 2019
At 9:00 a.m., President Barbre called to order the Special Meeting of the Municipal Water
District of Orange County Board of Directors of MWDOC at District facilities, 18700 Ward
Street, Fountain Valley, California. Director Dick led the Pledge of Allegiance and Secretary
Davanaugh called the roll.
MWDOC DIRECTORS STAFF PRESENT
Brett R. Barbre Robert Hunter, General Manager

Larry Dick Karl Seckel, Assistant General Manager (absent)
Vacant, Division 3 Joe Byrne, Legal Counsel
Joan Finnegan (absent) Maribeth Goldsby, Board Secretary
Sat Tamaribuchi Harvey De La Torre, Associate General Manager
Jeffery M. Thomas Melissa Baum Haley, Sr. Water Resources Analyst
Megan Yoo Schneider Tina Dubuque, Executive Assistant
Heather Baez, Governmental Affairs Manager
Tiffany Baca, Public Affairs Manager
Sarah Wilson, Public Affairs Specialist
Hilary Chumpitazi, Accounting Manager
OTHERS PRESENT
Jose Vergara El Toro Water District

Peer Swan Irvine Ranch Water District
Jim Atkinson Mesa Water
Stacy Taylor Mesa Water
Mike Markus Orange County Water District
Mathew Forester Candidate, Division 3
Robert McVicker Candidate, Division 3
Larry Crandall Candidate, Division 3
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Mr. Bob McVicker, Candidate the Division 3 vacancy, addressed the Board, highlighting his
passion for the water industry and his positive rapport with MWDOC’s member agencies.
He advised that he would embrace the opportunity to visit the agencies within Division 3,
and would consider the option of filling the vacancy on a limited-term basis. The Board
thanked Mr. McVicker for his comments.
General Manager Hunter announced that Mr. Khanh Nguyen had removed his name from
the candidacy pool for Division 3.
Page 5 of 213
Minutes June 3, 2019
APPOINT A DIRECTOR TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM IN DIVISION 3 OR

CALL AN ELECTION TO FILL THE VACANCY
President Barbre raised the issue of possibly holding a special election to fill the unexpired
term for Division 3 (in lieu of an appointment); the Board generally concurred to proceed
with the appointment process.
Director Thomas made a MOTION, which was seconded by Director Dick, to appoint Larry
Crandall as Director, Division 3. The MOTION failed by a vote of 3-2. Directors Barbre,
Dick, and Thomas voted in favor; Directors Yoo Schneider and Tamaribuchi opposed.
Director Tamaribuchi made a MOTION, which was seconded by Director Yoo Schneider to
appoint Bob McVicker as Director, Division 3.
The Board then discussed Candidate Bob McVicker, including his qualifications and
possible conflicts of interest (if any) due to his work as a consultant in the water industry.
Legal Counsel Byrne advised that he was not aware of any conflicts of interest.
Director Yoo Schneider advised she would be supporting Mr. McVicker’s candidacy.
Director Dick commented that although he originally supported a different candidate, he
would prefer that the choice for appointment remain with the MWDOC Board, rather than
being referred to the Board of Supervisors (in the event the MWDOC Board is not able to
make an appointment). As a result, he would be supporting Mr. McVicker’s candidacy as
well.
The MOTION to appoint Bob McVicker as Director, Division 3 failed by a vote of 3-2. With
Directors Dick, Yoo Schneider, and Tamaribuchi in favor, and Directors Barbre and Thomas
opposed.
Director Barbre made a MOTION, which was seconded by Director Thomas, to appoint
Mathew Forester as Director, Division 3. The MOTION failed by a vote of 2-3. Directors
Barbre and Thomas were in favor, and Directors Dick, Yoo Schneider, and Tamaribuchi
were opposed.
Director Barbre made a MOTION to appoint Janet Nguyen as Director, Division 3. Said
MOTION failed for lack of a second.
Director Dick suggested this matter be deferred and that the Board continue to work toward
a solution so that this issue is not forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
President Barbre, with the Board’s concurrence, recommended the Board hold a special
meeting on June 5, 2019 (following the Workshop Board Meeting) to again consider this
item.
President Barbre asked that Government Affairs Manager Heather Baez research whether
(in the past) the Board of Supervisors had to make an appointment in lieu of an election.
2 Page 6 of 213
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
9:16 a.m.
APPROVED:
_________________________
Maribeth Goldsby, Secretary
3 Page 7 of 213
Item No. 1b
MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP BOARD MEETING
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY (MWDOC)
WITH THE MWDOC MET DIRECTORS
June 5, 2019
At 8:30 a.m., President Barbre called to order the Regular Meeting of the Municipal Water
District of Orange County in the Board Room at the District facilities located in Fountain Valley.
Mesa Water Director Jim Atkinson led the Pledge of Allegiance and Secretary Goldsby called
the roll.
MWDOC DIRECTORS STAFF

Larry Dick Karl Seckel, Assistant General Manager
Joan Finnegan (absent) Joe Byrne, Legal Counsel
Vacant Maribeth Goldsby, Board Secretary
Jeffery M. Thomas Damon Micalizzi, Dir. of Public Affairs
Megan Yoo Schneider Kevin Hostert, Water Resources Analyst
Melissa Baum-Haley, Sr. Water Resources Analyst
Joe Berg, Director of Water Use Eff. Programs
Charles Busslinger, Principal Engineer
Heather Baez, Government Affairs Manager
*Also MWDOC MET Directors
OTHER MWDOC MET DIRECTORS

Larry McKenney
Linda Ackerman
OTHERS PRESENT
Adan Ortega MET Director, Fullerton
Brent Yamasaki Metropolitan Water District of So. California
Mark Monin El Toro Water District
Mike Dunbar Emerald Bay Service District
Steve LaMar Irvine Ranch Water District
Doug Reinhart Irvine Ranch Water District
Paul Cook Irvine Ranch Water District
Paul Weghorst Irvine Ranch Water District
Don Froelich Moulton Niguel Water District
Jose Solorio Moulton Niguel Water District
Kelly Rowe Orange County Water District
John Kennedy Orange County Water District
Adam Hutchinson Orange County Water District
Saundra Jacobs Santa Margarita Water District
Dennis Erdman South Coast Water District
Page 1 of 4
Page 8 of 213
Brooke Jones Yorba Linda Water District

Mat Forester Division 3 Candidate
Larry Crandall Division 3 Candidate
Bob McVicker Division 3 Candidate
Kristy Khachigian Kristy Khachigian Consulting
Nicholas Dibs
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION/PUBLIC COMMENTS
President Barbre inquired whether any members of the public wished to comment on agenda
items.
No public comments were made.
ITEMS RECEIVED TOO LATE TO BE AGENDIZED - Determine need and take action to
agendize item(s), which arose subsequent to the posting of the Agenda. (ROLL CALL VOTE:
Adoption of this recommendation requires a two-thirds vote of the Board members present or,
if less than two-thirds of the Board members are present, a unanimous vote.)
No items were presented.
President Barbre inquired as to whether there were any items distributed to the Board less
than 72 hours prior to the meeting.
PRESENTATION/DISCUSSION/INFORMATION ITEMS
INPUT OR QUESTIONS ON MET ISSUES FROM THE MEMBER AGENCIES/MET

DIRECTOR REPORTS REGARDING MET COMMITTEE PARTICIPATION
Director Ackerman highlighted California WaterFix activities.
Director Dick expressed some concern with the proposed $200,000 expenditure for the
California Resilience Challenge (on the MET Board Consent Calendar). He also highlighted
the proposed $1.26 million expenditure to purchase insurance coverage for MET’s Property
and Casualty Insurance Program, the proposed $696,000 expenditure for the Colorado River
Board and Colorado River Authority, as well as reporting that MET is interviewing the final
candidates for the Ethics Officer position.
City of Fullerton MET Director, Adan Ortega, concurred with Director Dick’s concerns relative
to the California Resilience Challenge expenditure and he also commented on the California
WaterFix activities.
Considerable discussion ensued regarding the California WaterFix activities

(communication/education issues, the steps necessary to get to completion, the need for a 6-
9K cfs pipe, and the potential for natural disaster, e.g., an earthquake).
Page 2 of 4
Page 9 of 213
WATER SUPPLY CONDITIONS UPDATE
The Board received and filed the report that was included in the packet of materials; no
presentation was made.
PRESENTATION BY BRENT YAMASAKI REGARDING MET’S OPERATING PLAN

FOR 2019 AND MET’S EMERGENCY DELIVERY CONCEPT
Mr. Brent Yamasaki (MET’s Interim Chief of Operations) presented an overview of MET’s 2019
Annual Operating Plan and Emergency Delivery concept.
Mr. Yamasaki advised that MET’s Annual Operating Plan (Plan) provides a framework for
strategic operations and continued reliability, as well as a tool to communicate expected future
operations to help MET’s member agencies and partners better prepare for the upcoming
year. He provided an overview of the Plan, how it was developed, the analyses of balancing
operations through varying conditions (as well as being prepared for a range of conditions),
maintaining a high level of storage reserves, and supply and demand balance. Mr. Yamasaki
also provided an overview of the Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan (WSDM) and
how the WSDM Plan provided guidelines to prioritize the use of storage in shortage conditions,
and the replenishment of storage in surplus conditions.
Mr. Yamasaki then presented information regarding the potential concept for emergency
deliveries of member agency water supplies (utilizing the MET system in an emergency),
noting that this concept is intended to provide MET’s member agencies the ability to deliver
water supplies through MET’s system under specific emergency conditions in which MET is
physically unable to make deliveries to an operable existing member agency service
connection due to damage associated with a natural disaster or other catastrophic event, for a
period greater than seven days. Included in his presentation were emergency scenarios and
examples. He noted that emergency water deliveries should be considered in a proactive and
measured way (before a major emergency), that emergency deliveries must not displace other
agency efforts to prepare for emergencies, that amendments to MET’s Administrative Code
will be required, and that this will be presented to the MET Board in June (as Information item)
with anticipated action by the MET Board in July.
Following discussion, the Board thanked Mr. Yamasaki and received and filed the report as
presented.
CALIFORNIA WATERFIX ACTIVITIES UPDATE
No additional information was discussed; the Board received and filed the staff report.
MWD ITEMS CRITICAL TO ORANGE COUNTY
a. MET’s Water Supply Conditions

b. MET’s Finance and Rate Issues
c. Colorado River Issues
d. Bay Delta/State Water Project Issues
e. MET’s Ocean Desalination Policy and Potential Participation by MET in the
Doheny Desalination Project
f. Orange County Reliability Projects
g. East Orange County Feeder No. 2
Page 3 of 4
Page 10 of 213
h. South County Projects
The information was received and filed.
METROPOLITAN (MET) BOARD AND COMMITTEE AGENDA DISCUSSION ITEMS
a. Summary regarding May MET Board Meetings

b. Review items of significance for the upcoming MET Board and Committee
Agendas
The information was received and filed.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:08 a.m.
_______________________
Maribeth Goldsby
Board Secretary
Page 4 of 4
Page 11 of 213
Item No. 1c
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING

June 5, 2019
At 10:19 a.m., President Barbre called to order the Special Meeting of the Municipal Water
District of Orange County Board of Directors of MWDOC at District facilities, 18700 Ward
Street, Fountain Valley, California. Director Dick led the Pledge of Allegiance and Secretary
Davanaugh called the roll.

Joan Finnegan (absent) Joe Byrne, Legal Counsel
Megan Yoo Schneider Kevin Hostert, Water Resources Analyst
Melissa Baum-Haley, Sr. Water Res. Analyst
Joe Berg, Director of Water Use Eff. Programs
Charles Busslinger, Principal Engineer
Heather Baez, Government Affairs Manager
*Also MWDOC MET Directors
OTHER MWDOC MET DIRECTORS

Larry McKenney
Linda Ackerman
OTHERS PRESENT
Adan Ortega MET Director, Fullerton
Brent Yamasaki Metropolitan Water District of So. California
Mark Monin El Toro Water District
Mike Dunbar Emerald Bay Service District
Steve LaMar Irvine Ranch Water District
Doug Reinhart Irvine Ranch Water District
Paul Cook Irvine Ranch Water District
Paul Weghorst Irvine Ranch Water District
Jose Solorio Moulton Niguel Water District
John Kennedy Orange County Water District
Page 12 of 213
Adam Hutchinson Orange County Water District

Saundra Jacobs Santa Margarita Water District
Mathew Forester Division 3 Candidate
Larry Crandall Division 3 Candidate
Bob McVicker Division 3 Candidate
Kristy Khachigian Kristy Khachigian Consulting
Nicholas Dibs
Mr. Nicholas Dibs addressed the Board regarding the Division 3 Director appointment,
urging the Board to appoint Mr. Bob McVicker.
Mr. Mathew Forester, Candidate for the Division 3 vacancy, addressed the Board, provided
an overview of this background, highlighting the diversity in his background in
business/leadership which he believed would be an asset to the Board.
APPOINT A DIRECTOR TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM IN DIVISION 3 OR

CALL AN ELECTION TO FILL THE VACANCY
President Barbre advised that the proposal to appoint a Director for Division 3, as the result
of the vacancy created by the resignation of Wayne Osborne, was before the Board for
consideration.
Director Tamaribuchi made a MOTION, which was seconded by Director Yoo Schneider, for
the Board to appoint Bob McVicker as Director for Division 3.
Directors Dick and Thomas each stated that they would now be supporting Mr. McVicker as
Director, Division 3; they each thanked all of the candidates who applied.
Following discussion, and by a vote of 4-1, the Board adopted RESOLUTION NO. 2087
appointing Robert R. McVicker as Municipal Water District of Orange County’s Division 3
Director. Said RESOLUTION NO. 2087 was adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Directors Dick, Yoo Schneider, Tamaribuchi & Thomas

NOES: Director Barbre
ABSENT: Director Finnegan
ABSTAIN: None
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
10:40 a.m.
2 Page 13 of 213
APPROVED:
_________________________
3 Page 14 of 213
Item No. 1d
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING

OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
June 19, 2019
At 8:30 a.m., President Barbre called to order the Regular Meeting of the Municipal Water District
of Orange County in the Board Room at the District facilities located in Fountain Valley. Director
McVicker led the Pledge of Allegiance, Director Thomas conducted an invocation, and Secretary
Goldsby called the roll.

Joan Finnegan (absent) Alisha Winterswyk, Legal Counsel
Megan Yoo Schneider (absent) Melissa Baum-Haley, Sr. Water Resources Analyst
Joe Berg, Director of Water Use Efficiency
Heather Baez, Governmental Affairs Manager
ALSO PRESENT
Jim Atkinson Mesa Water District
Stacy Taylor Mesa Water District
Greg Mills Serrano Water District
Rick Shintaku South Coast Water District
Christine Carson Aleshire & Wynder
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION/PUBLIC COMMENT

President Barbre announced members of the public wishing to comment on agenda items could
do so after the item has been discussed by the Board and requested members of the public
identify themselves when called on. Mr. Barbre asked whether there were any comments on
other items which would be heard at this time.
Director Jim Atkinson (Mesa Water) thanked MWDOC for support on the California United Water
Symposium to be held) June 26-28, 2019 in Auburn, California.
Page 15 of 213
No items were received.
President Barbre inquired as to whether there were any items distributed to the Board less than
72 hours prior to the meeting.
No items were distributed.
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS
President Barbre, along with General Manager Hunter, presented awards to Heather Baez for five
years of service to the District, and Kelly Hubbard for fifteen years of service to the District.
CONSENT CALENDAR
President Barbre stated all matters under the Consent Calendar would be approved by one
MOTION unless a Director wished to consider an item separately.
Upon MOTION by Director Thomas, seconded by Director Tamaribuchi, and carried (5-0), the
Board approved the following Consent Calendar items. Directors Barbre, Dick, McVicker,
Tamaribuchi, and Thomas and voted in favor; Directors Finnegan and Yoo Schneider were
absent.
MINUTES
The following minutes were approved.
May 1, 2019 Workshop Board Meeting (adjourned)

May 15, 2019 Regular Board Meeting
May 21, 2019 Special Board Meeting
May 29, 2019 Special Board Meeting
COMMITTEE MEETING REPORTS
The following Committee Meeting reports were received and filed as presented.
Combined Planning & Operations/ Administration & Finance

Committee Meeting: May 6, 2019
Public Affairs & Legislation Committee Meeting: May 20, 2019
Executive Committee Meeting: May 16, 2019
TREASURER'S REPORTS
The following items were ratified and approved as presented.
2
Page 16 of 213
MWDOC Revenue/Cash Receipt Register as of May 31, 2019

MWDOC Disbursement Registers (May/June)
The following items were received and filed as presented.
MWDOC Summary of Cash and Investment and Portfolio Master Summary Report (Cash
and Investment report) as of April 30, 2019
PARS Monthly Statement (OPEB Trust)
Water Use Efficiency Projects Cash Flow
FINANCIAL REPORT
The following items were received and filed as presented.
Combined Financial Statements and Budget Comparative for the period ending April 30,
2019
LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The Board authorized the General Manager to enter into professional services agreements not to
exceed $160,000 with: (1) The Plant Nerd, Inc. and EcoTech Services to provide landscape
design assistance; (2) The Plant Nerd, Inc. and TerraWorks Studio to provide landscape
maintenance assistance; and (3) Other firms (to be determined) who demonstrate they are
qualified to do the work and agree to a competitive fee structure.
AMENDMENTS TO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTION 9500
The Board authorized staff to update the Administrative Code for Section 9500.
2019-20 PAY STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENT
The Board approved the proposed Pay Structure Schedule, adjusting the District salary ranges by
3.8%, as approved during the budget process.
AWARD CONTRACT FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEM REHABILITATION PROJECT
The Board approved entering into the subject agreement for improvements to the MWDOC
administration building electrical system: (1) Made a CEQA finding that the project is categorical
exempt under: Class 1-Existing Facilities; (2) Awarded AVRAM Electric “MWDOC Electrical
System Rehabilitation Project” construction contract in the amount of $213,883.00; (3) Authorized
the General Manager to enter into a license agreement with OCWD to install and maintain
underground electric utilities and related equipment on OCWD property, and pay OCWD a one-
time license fee of $1,148.00.
- END CONSENT CALENDAR –
3
Page 17 of 213
ACTION CALENDAR
SB 200 (MONNING) – SAFE AND AFFORDABLE DRINKING WATER FUND
Director Thomas expressed concern with the legislation, noting that it allows the fund to be set
up, but is not clear as to funding sources. He believed this may eventually allow a “tax” to fund
the “fund”; Director Barbre concurred.
Director McVicker made a MOTION, which was seconded by Director Dick, to adopt a support
position on SB 200 (Monning) the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund. Said MOTION
failed by a vote of 3-2. Directors Dick, McVicker and Tamaribuchi voted in favor; Directors
Thomas and Barbre opposed; and Directors Finnegan and Yoo Schneider were absent.
AB 402 (QUIRK) – STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD: LOCAL

PRIMACY AGENCIES, FUNDING STABILIZATION
Upon MOTION by Director Thomas, seconded by Director McVicker, and carried (5-0), the Board
adopted an oppose unless amended position on AB 402 (Quirk), State Water Resources Control
Board: local primacy delegation: funding stabilization program. Directors Barbre, Dick, McVicker,
Tamaribuchi, and Thomas voted in favor. Directors Finnegan and Yoo Schneider were absent.
H.R. 2313 (HUFFMAN) – WATER CONSERVATION REBATE TAX PARITY ACT
Upon MOTION by Director Dick, seconded by Director Thomas, and carried (4-1), the Board
voted to adopt a support position on H.R. 2313 (Huffman). Directors Dick, McVicker,
Tamaribuchi & Thomas voted in favor; Director Barbre opposed; and Directors Finnegan and Yoo
Schneider were absent.
EXTENSION OF CONSULTING CONTRACT WITH ACKERMAN CONSULTING
Upon MOTION by Director Thomas, seconded by Director McVicker, and carried (5-0), the Board
authorized the extension of the contract with Ackerman Consulting for specialized services.
Directors Barbre, Dick, McVicker, Tamaribuchi & Thomas voted in favor; Directors Finnegan and
Yoo Schneider were absent.
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES (ACWA) REGION 10 CALL FOR

CANDIDATES
Director Tamaribuchi advised that although MWDOC MET Director Larry McKenney had originally
indicated a desire for MWDOC to nominate him to the ACWA Region 10 Board, he has now sent
a letter withdrawing his interest in doing so. President Barbre asked that the letter be distributed
to the Board. No member of the MWDOC Board expressed an interest in running for the Region
10 Board. No action was taken.
4
Page 18 of 213
CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION (CSDA) 2019 BOARD OF

DIRECTORS ELECTION – SOUTHERN NETWORK REGION, SEAT B
authorized President Barbre, or his designee, to cast the District’s ballot in favor of candidate
Greg Mills (Serrano Water District) for the CSDA 2019 Board of Directors Election – Southern
Network Region, Seat B. Directors Barbre, Dick, McVicker, Tamaribuchi & Thomas voted in
favor; Directors Finnegan and Yoo Schneider were absent.
SPECIAL DISTRICT RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (SDRMA) BOARD OF

DIRECTORS ELECTION
authorized President Barbre, or his designee, to cast the District’s ballot for the SDRMA Board of
Directors. Directors Barbre, Dick, McVicker, Tamaribuchi & Thomas voted in favor; Directors
Finnegan and Yoo Schneider were absent.
AB 1752 (PETRIE-NORRIS): DOHENY DESALINATION FACILITY
Mr. Rick Shintaku (General Manager, South Coast Water District) thanked the MWDOC Board for
setting the foundation for the Doheny Desalination Project, which falls directly in line with the
recently published OC Reliability Study, as well as MET’s Integrated Resources Plan. He
encouraged support for AB 1752, and invited the Board to attend the Doheny Deslination
Project’s final draft EIR hearing scheduled for Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 6:00 pm.
Director Barbre suggested the co-author of the legislation also be mentioned (Assemblyman Bill
Brough).
adopted a support position on AB 1752. Directors Barbre, Dick, McVicker, Tamaribuchi &
Thomas voted in favor; Directors Finnegan and Yoo Schneider were absent.
INFORMATION CALENDAR
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT, JUNE 2019
General Manager Hunter advised that the General Manager’s report was included in the Board
packet.
General Manager Hunter advised that he would be attending the Doheny Desalination Project
final draft EIR hearing on June 27th.
Mr. Hunter also distributed lapel pins to the Board (with MWDOC’s logo), as well as a plaque from
the County of Butte Board of Supervisors thanking MWDOC for the assistance provided during
the “Camp Fire”.
The Board received and filed the report as presented.
5
Page 19 of 213
MWDOC GENERAL INFORMATION ITEMS
a. BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The Board members each reported on their attendance at the regular (and special) MWDOC
Board and Committee meetings. In addition to these meetings, the following reports were made
on conferences and meetings attended on behalf of the District.
Director Thomas noted his attendance at the OC Water Summit, the ACWA conference, the
Special Board meetings regarding the Division 3 vacancy. He noted he would be attending a Girl
Scout event at Santa Margarita Water District.
Director Tamaribuchi reported on attending the regularly scheduled MWDOC meetings except the
Executive Committee, (Planning & Operations, Administration & Finance, and Public Affairs &
Legislation Committee meetings, as well as the Workshop and Regular Board meetings), the OC
Water Summit, the WACO meeting, the MNWD/BIA Water & Housing Forum, and a meeting with
representatives from OC CoastKeeper.
Director McVicker reported on attending the regularly scheduled MWDOC meetings (since his
appointment on June 5th), including the Administration & Finance and Public Affairs & Legislation
Committee meetings. He also attended the Mesa Water District Board meeting, and will be
attending the ISDOC luncheon to be held later in the month.
Director Dick reported on attending the regularly scheduled meetings (Planning & Operations,
Administration & Finance and Executive Committee meetings, and Board and Workshop
meetings), as well as the Special meetings regarding the Division 3 vacancy, Urban Water
Institute planning meeting, MET’s Solar Cup event, the WACO Planning and WACO meetings,
the MET employee service luncheon, the OC Water Summit, the ISDOC meeting, a meeting with
Supervisor Chaffee’s office, the Garden Grove Legislative Committee meeting, the MET
Executive Committee meeting, the MET Board and Committee meetings, and the MET Caucus.
Director Barbre advised that he submitted a written report to Secretary Goldsby. He noted that
the written report included the following meetings in his capacity as MET Director: the Poster
Awards Ceremony at Discovery Cube, the MET Committee day (late), a meeting with Scott
Maloni (Poseidon), the MWDOC/MET Director caucus (early), a meeting with the BUREC
Commissioner, a meeting with MET Chair Gloria Gray, and the Regional Water Quality Control
Board hearing regarding Poseidon issues. He also noted that he was invited to testify at the
House National Resources Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife. In his capacity as
MWDOC Director he attended the following meetings: the Executive, Public Affairs & Legislation
(May and June), and Planning & Operations Committee meetings, the Workshop Board meeting,
the Special Board meetings regarding the Division 3 vacancy (including interviews), a meeting
with Tustin Councilman Bernstein, the OC Water Summit, a meeting with Jim Barker, and he
attended the Placentia Library Commission meeting. Director Barbre noted he also attended the
Fairmont Booster Pump Station Dedication ceremony.
6
Page 20 of 213
b. REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA TOPICS
Although, no additional topics for future agendas were requested, President Barbre asked Mr.
Hunter several questions relating to the General Manager’s responsibilities relative to the Board
members and staff (e.g., relating to compliance with the Personnel Manual, Conflict of Interest
Laws, campaign disclosure, residency laws, travel and expenses, and personnel training
requirements).
CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
At 9:08 a.m., Legal Counsel Winterswyk announced that the Board would adjourn to closed
session, for a conference with Legal Counsel Winterswyk on the following matter:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION

Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section
54956.9: (One case)
At 9:51, a.m, Legal Counsel Winterswyk exited the meeting, and the Board adjourned to closed
session for a conference with Legal Counsel Christine Carson on the following matters:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION

Pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9. One
Case: San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California; all persons interested in the validity of the rates adopted by the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California on April 13, 2010, et al., former Los Angeles Superior
Court, Case No. BS 126888, transferred on October 21, 2010, to San Francisco Superior
Court, Case No. CPF-10-510830. [On Remand from Court of Appeal Case No. A146901]

Pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code 54956.9. One Case:
San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; all
persons interested in the validity of the rates adopted by the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California on April 10, 2012 to be Effective January 1, 2013 and January 1,
2014; and Does 1-10, et al., former Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BS137830,
transferred on August 23, 2012, to San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CPF-12-
512466. [On Remand from Court of Appeal Case No. A148266]

Water of Southern California on April 8, 2014, et al., former Los Angeles Superior Court,
Case No. BC547139, transferred on December 2, 2014, to San Francisco Superior Court,
Case No. CPF-14-514004.
7
Page 21 of 213

Water District of Southern California on April 12, 2016, effective January 1, 2017 and
January 1, 2018, et al., former Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. No. BS161729,
transferred to San Francisco Superior Court, Case CPF-16-515282.

Water District of Southern California in 2017 to be effective January 1, 2018, et al., Los
Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BS 169881, transferred to San Francisco Superior
Court Case CGC-17-563350.

Water District of Southern California on April 10, 2018 to be effective January 1, 2019, and
Jan. 1, 2020, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BS 173868, Transferred to San
Francisco Superior Court, Case CPF-18-516389.
(Director Tamaribuchi left the meeting at 10:17 a.m.).
RECONVENE
The Board reconvened at 10:38 a.m., and President Barbre announced that no reportable action
was taken in closed session.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Board, President Barbre adjourned the
meeting at 10:39 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________
8
Page 22 of 213
Item No. 2a
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
Jointly with the
PLANNING & OPERATIONS
June 3, 2019 – 8:30 a.m. to 8:45 a.m.
Conference Room 101
P&O Committee: Staff:

Director Megan Yoo Schneider Rob Hunter, Karl Seckel, Joe Berg,
Director Sat Tamaribuchi Maribeth Goldsby, Harvey De La Torre,
Director Larry Dick Charles Busslinger, Melissa Baum Haley,
Heather Baez, Rachel Davis, Joe Byrne,
Damon Micalizzi, Kevin Hostert, Tiffany Baca,
Sarah Wilson
Also Present:
Director Brett Barbre
Director Jeff Thomas
Jose Vergara, ETWD
Peer Swan, IRWD
Jim Atkinson, Mesa Water
Stacy Taylor, Mesa Water
Mike Markus, OCWD
Larry and Sarah Crandall
Mathew Forester
Bob McVicker
Director Yoo Schneider called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.; Director Dick led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments were received.
ACTION ITEMS
LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Director of Water Use Efficiency, Joe Berg, advised that staff is proposing to reinstate
landscape design assistance into MWDOC’s portfolio of landscape programs and to add a
landscape maintenance component. Mr. Berg stated that staff composed and distributed a
Page 1
Page 23 of 213
Planning & Operations (P&O) Committee June 3, 2019
Request for Proposals (RFP) outlining the desired services and schedule for the MWDOC
Landscape Design and Maintenance Assistance Program, and is recommending that the
Board approve entering into contracts with (1) Plant Nerd and EcoTech services to provide
landscape design assistance, (2) Plant Nerd and TerraWorks Studio to provide landscape
maintenance assistance, and (3) other firms (to be determined) who demonstrate they are
qualified to do the work and agree to a competitive fee structure.
Discussion ensued regarding the cost differences between North and South Orange County
agencies, with Director Dick highlighting his belief that all agencies should pay equal costs.
Upon MOTION by Director Tamaribuchi, seconded by Director Dick, and carried (3-0),the
Committee recommended the Board authorize the General Manager to enter into
professional services agreements not to exceed $160,000 with (1) Plant Nerd and EcoTech
services to provide landscape design assistance, (2) Plant Nerd and TerraWorks Studio to
provide landscape maintenance assistance, and (3) other firms (to be determined) who
demonstrate they are qualified to do the work and agree to a competitive fee structure.
Directors Yoo Schneider, Dick, and Tamaribuchi voted in favor. This item will be presented
to the Board on June 19, 2019.
DISCUSSION ITEM
WEROC GIS DATA AND MAPPING UPDATE
Director of Emergency Management Kelly Hubbard provided an overview of the WEROC

GIS Data and Mapping Project, noting it will enhance the accuracy of the datasets for
MWDOC’s use and for sharing with others, and should reduce overall mapping costs and
turn-around time per project, through efficiencies in utilizing the improved data moving
forward. She advised that the Project cost is within the General Manager’s authority (cost
estimate through CDR is $19,643).
Upon MOTION by Director Dick, seconded by Director Tamaribuchi, and carried (3-0), the
Committee received and filed the report as presented.
INFORMATION ITEMS
STATUS REPORTS
a. Ongoing MWDOC Reliability and Engineering/Planning Projects

b. WEROC
c. Water Use Efficiency Projects
d. Water Use Efficiency Programs Savings and Implementation Report
The Committee reviewed the status reports for Engineering, WEROC and Water Use
Efficiency (WUE
The informational reports were received and filed.
Page 2 of 3
Page 24 of 213
Planning & Operations (P&O) Committee June 3, 2019
REVIEW OF ISSUES RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS, WATER USE

EFFICIENCY, FACILITY AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE, WATER STORAGE,
WATER QUALITY, CONJUNCTIVE USE PROGRAMS, EDUCATION, DISTRICT
FACILITIES, AND MEMBER-AGENCY RELATIONS
Director Tamaribuchi requested information regarding MET’s regional storage portfolio; it

was noted that the presentation from the April 3, 2019 Workshop Board meeting, along with
the White Paper, would be sent to Director Tamaribuchi.
Director Tamaribuchi also requested that a status update on the small non-compliant water
systems be included in the Engineering matrix next month.
Director Tamaribuchi noted he would like a better understanding on the impacts of the
Public Utilities Commission (PUC) de-energization on first responders in local government;
particularly impacts to Orange County. It was noted that Kelly Hubbard would include this in
an upcoming meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to be brought before the Committee, the meeting adjourned
at 8:45 a.m.
Page 3 of 3
Page 25 of 213
Item No. 2b
Jointly with the
ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE COMMITTEE
June 12, 2019 – 8:30 a.m. to 8:59 a.m.
Conference Room 101
A&F Committee: Staff:

Director Jeff Thomas Rob Hunter, Karl Seckel, Joe Berg,
Director Joan Finnegan (absent) Katie Davanaugh, Harvey DeLaTorre,
Director Bob McVicker Charles Busslinger, Hilary Chumpitazi,
Cathy Harris, Maribeth Goldsby,
Damon Micalizzi
Also Present:
Director Megan Larry Dick
Director Megan Sat Tamaribuchi
MWDOC MET Director Linda Ackerman
MWDOC MET Director Larry McKenney
Peer Swan, Irvine Ranch Water District
Marwan Khalifa, Mesa Water
Neely Shahbakhti, El Toro Water District
Director Thomas called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. In the absence of Director
Finnegan, Director Yoo Schneider sat on the Committee.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments were received.
ACTION ITEMS
PROPOSED BOARD CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
TREASURER'S REPORT
a. Revenue/Cash Receipt Report – May 2019

b. Disbursement Approval Report for the month of June 2019
c. Disbursement Ratification Report for the month of May 2019
d. GM Approved Disbursement Report for the month of May 2019
e. Water Use Efficiency Projects Cash Flow – May 30, 2019
Page 1
Page 26 of 213
Administration & Finance Meeting Minutes June 12, 2019
f. Consolidated Summary of Cash and Investment – April 2019

g. OPEB and Pension Trust Fund monthly statement
Following review of the disbursement reports, and upon MOTION by Director

Yoo Schneider, seconded by Director McVicker and carried (3-0), the Committee
recommended the Treasurer’s Report for approval at the June 19, 2019 Board meeting.
Directors Yoo Schneider, Thomas, and McVicker voted in favor.
FINANCIAL REPORT - Combined Financial Statements and Budget Comparative

for the Period ending April 30, 2019
Following review of the Financial Report, upon MOTION by Director Yoo Schneider,
seconded by Director Thomas and carried (3-0), the Committee recommended the Financial
Report for approval at the June 19, 2019 Board meeting. Directors Yoo Schneider,
Thomas, and McVicker voted in favor.
ACTION ITEMS
AMENDMENT TO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTION 9500
Upon MOTION by Director Yoo Schneider, seconded by Director McVicker and carried
(3-0), the Committee recommended approval of the Amendment to Administrative Code
Section 9500 at the June 19, 2019 Board meeting. Directors Yoo Schneider, Thomas and
McVicker voted in favor.
It was noted that Section 9500 pertains to disposal of surplus property.
2019-20 PAY STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENT
Mr. Hunter noted that the pay structure adjustment presented in the staff report is to the
salary schedule only (which was approved during the budget process) and not an
adjustment to individual salaries. Additionally, the revisions to the pay structure included
additions of the new Water Loss Control positions which were also approved during the
budget process.
Staff was directed to remove the word “COLA” from the pay structure, as it is not applicable.
Upon MOTION by Yoo Schneider, seconded by Director McVicker and carried (3-0), the
Committee recommended approval of 2019-20 Pay Structure Adjustment at the
June 19, 2019 Board meeting. Directors Yoo Schneider, McVicker and Thomas voted in
favor.
AWARD CONTRACT FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEM REHABILITATION PROJECT
Charles Busslinger reviewed the bid process for the necessary electrical improvements as
well as the selection criteria process. The electrical work is required before other building
improvements can be started. The staff report was reviewed which outlined project bidding
information, bid summary, license agreement requirements with OCWD and a financial
summary for the work.
Page 2 of 3
Page 27 of 213
Administration & Finance Meeting Minutes June 12, 2019
Upon MOTION by Director McVicker, seconded by Director Yoo Schneider and carried
(3-0), the Committee recommended approval of the contract for electrical system
rehabilitation work at the June 19, 2019 Board meeting. Directors Yoo Schneider, McVicker
and Thomas voted in favor.
Staff was directed to hold a pre-construction meeting to review the schedule of work to
minimize potential change orders and minimize the disruption of work by staff during
work/construction activities.
INFORMATION ITEMS
OFFICE BUILDING MARKET RESEARCH
Mr. Hunter noted that the market research was conducted at the request of the Board,
following questions whether the cost effectiveness of the improvements proposed were
warranted, versus the cost of moving the District office to a new location. The Committee
reviewed and held discussion on the listing of potential buildings for sale, square footage,
office space needs and cost.
The Committee received and filed the report.
DEPARTMENT ACTIVITIES REPORTS

a. Administration
b. Finance and Information Technology
MONTHLY WATER USAGE DATA, TIER 2 PROJECTION, AND WATER SUPPLY

INFORMATION
The informational reports were received without comment.
OTHER ITEMS
REVIEW ISSUES REGARDING DISTRICT ORGANIZATION, PERSONNEL

MATTERS, EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FINANCE AND INSURANCE
No information was presented.
ADJOURNMENT
at 8:59 a.m.
Page 3 of 3
Page 28 of 213
Item No. 2c
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

Jointly with the
PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
June 17, 2019 – 8:30 a.m. to 9:57 a.m.
MWDOC Conference Room 101
Committee: Staff: R. Hunter, H. Baez, M. Goldsby,
Director Dick, Chairman J. Berg, M. Baum-Haley, S. Wilson,
Director Thomas H. De La Torre, T. Baca, T. Dubuque
Director McVicker
Also Present:
Brett Barbre, MWDOC Director
Sat Tamaribuchi, MWDOC Director
Larry McKenney, MWDOC MET Director
Syrus Devers, BB&K
Dick Ackerman, Ackerman Consulting
John Lewis, Lewis Consulting
Jim Barker, (via teleconference)
Nick Crockett (via teleconference with
Jim Barker)
Stacy Taylor, Mesa Water
Peer Swan, Irvine Ranch Water District
Steve LaMar, Irvine Ranch Water District
Frank Prewoznik, Irvine Ranch WD
Mike Gaskins, El Toro Water District
Pasquale Talarico, Yorba Linda WD
Tim Kerns, Hashtag PinPoint
Greg Mills, Serrano Water District
Director Dick called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. Upon the absence of Director
Thomas, Director Barbre sat on the committee. Director Barbre exited the meeting at
9:37 a.m. and Director Tamaribuchi sat on the committee.
No public comments received.


Page 1 of 6
Page 29 of 213
Public Affairs and Legislation (PAL) Committee Meeting Minutes June 17, 2019
DISCUSSION ITEMS
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
a. Federal Legislative Report (Barker)
Mr. James Barker reviewed his report included in the packet noting that this week top
congressional leaders, both Democrat and Republican are going to the White House to try
to strike a budget deal. The relevance to MWDOC is the language contained in the Energy
and Water Appropriations bill includes the Doheny Beach Desal project’s $8.3 million
funding. Mr. Barker also highlighted draft language of a bill, which is being circulated by
Senator Feinstein and Republican Senator Gardner - this measure would reauthorize the
2016 WIIN Act.
b. State Legislative Report (BBK)

Mr. Syrus Devers shared that Lena Gonzalez was sworn into the State Senate on
Wednesday. Ms. Gonzalez is replacing Senator Ricardo Lara, who was elected the state’s
Insurance Commissioner in November 2018.
Mr. Devers’ focus was on the first bill of the year, SB 1 by Senator Toni Atkins – the
California Environmental, Public Health, and Workers Defense Act of 2019. He wanted to
discuss this bill because a number of water districts are weighing in on it. Essentially SB 1
would prevent any action by the Trump Administration to roll back environmental protections
in California and prohibits the standards from falling below baselines established as of
January 19, 2017. The portion of this bill that would be of the most interest to the water
districts is the Endangered Species Act. Many water districts and the Southern California
Water Coalition oppose this bill. ACWA and MET have adopted an oppose unless
amended position.
Director Tamaribuchi requested to see a copy of the bill. He stated that since this bill affects
the Endangered Species Act, we need to exercise great care. Director Dick requested that
Heather Baez provide the requested information to Director Tamaribuchi.
c. County Legislative Report (Lewis)

Mr. John Lewis updated the Committee on LAFCO activities noting that the pay increase for
the LAFCO executive officer was approved. He also shared that the vote for the County of
Orange’s $6.8 billion budget would take place June 25, and he commented on the Orange
County Jail scandal. Mr. Lewis noted that the exceptionally cool weather in Colorado is
delaying the snowmelt; this will extend the snowmelt another month or longer. He noted that
Lake Powell has increased by one foot a day in the last eight days.
d. Legal and Regulatory Report (Ackerman)

Mr. Dick Ackerman highlighted items number 8 and 9 in his report. He stated there is
increased interest in using water facilities to generate electricity. For example, the plan
would store water in a reservoir in Lower Rock Creek dam, release the water during peak
electricity hours through power turbines to lower reservoirs and then during non-peak
hours pump the water back up into the upper reservoirs.
Page 2 of 6
Page 30 of 213
e. MWDOC Legislative Matrix

The Legislative Matrix was received and filed.
f. Metropolitan Legislative Matrix

The Legislative Matrix was received and filed.
ACTION ITEMS
SB 200 (MONNING) – SAFE AND AFFORDABLE DRINKING WATER FUND

Mr. Syrus Devers shared that SB 200 contains some of the framework from SB 623, minus
the water tax language or other funding mechanism. SB 200 contains everything that is
needed, including the following wording: “this act does not impose a levy, charge, or
exaction of any kind, such as a tax or fee”. This bill adequately creates the fund in its
current form but there are other things that could be added.
Upon MOTION by Director McVicker and seconded by Director Barbre and carried (2-1) the
Committee recommended the Board vote to adopt a support position for SB 200 (Monning)
the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund. Directors Dick and McVicker voted in favor
and Director Barbre opposed. This item will be presented to the Board on June 19, 2019.
AB 402 (QUIRK) STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD; LOCAL
PRIMARY AGENCIES, FUNDING STABILIZATION
Government Affairs Manager Heather Baez stated that the State Board has recently given
indication that they believe in order to adequately fund the LPAs in the rest of the state that
they are going to need to enact a small fee from all water providers, not just LPAs. She
went on to say that even though the fee would be a small amount from our ratepayers, it is
basically a water tax.
Upon MOTION by Director Barbre, seconded by Director McVicker, and carried (3-0), the
Committee recommended the Board adopt an oppose unless amended position on AB 402
(Quirk) State Water Resources Control Board: Local Primary Agencies, Funding
Stabilization. Directors Dick, McVicker and Barbre voted in favor. This item will be
presented to the Board on June 19, 2019.
H.R. 2313 (HUFFMAN) – WATER CONSERVATION REBATE TAX PARITY ACT

Upon MOTION by Director McVicker, and seconded by Director Barbre and carried (2-1)
the Committee recommended the Board adopt a support position on H.R. 2313 (Huffman)
Water Conservation Rebate Tax Parity Act. Directors Dick and McVicker voted in favor,
Director Barbre opposed. This item will be presented to the Board on June 19, 2019.
EXTENSION OF CONSULTING CONTRACT WITH ACKERMAN CONSULTING

Upon MOTION by Director Barbre, seconded by Director McVicker, and carried (3-0), the
Committee recommended the Board consider extending the contract with Ackerman
Consulting for specialized services. Directors Dick, McVicker, and Barbre voted in favor.
This item will be presented to the Board on June 19, 2019.
Page 3 of 6
Page 31 of 213
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES (ACWA) REGION 10

CALL FOR CANDIDATES
Discussion ensued around nominating Director Larry McKenney to the ACWA Region 10
Board. The conversation centered on Director McKenney’s experience, time availability and
desire to serve on the ACWA Region 10 Board. Director McKenney stated that he is
currently serving on ACWA committees and this position would not add to the time
commitment. Director LaMar, Vice President of ACWA expressed his support for Director
McKenney’s continued participation in ACWA as a region representative or committee
member. No MWDOC Board members expressed a desire to be nominated.
Upon MOTION by Director McVicker, seconded by Director Tamaribuchi, and carried (3-0),
the Committee recommended the Board discuss/support Director Larry McKenney’s
nomination run for the ACWA Region 10 Board and to determine whether any of the
MWDOC Directors had a desire to be nominated. Directors Dick, McVIcker and
Tamaribuchi voted in favor. This item will be presented to the Board on June 19,, 2019.
CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION (CSDA) 2019 BOARD OF

DIRECTORS ELECTION – SOUTHERN NETWORK REGION, SEAT B
The Committee reviewed the list of candidates that are running for CSDA 2019 Board of
Directors – Southern Network - Seat B.
Director Dick stated that he felt confident in nominee Greg Mills’ (Director at Serrano Water
District) qualifications for this seat. Director Mills spoke to promote his candidacy for the
California Special Districts Associations, Southern Network Region, Seat B and said he
would be honored to serve in this way.
Upon MOTION by Director Tamaribuchi, seconded by Director McVicker and carried (3-0),
the Committee recommended the Board support Serrano Water District Director Greg Mills
for the California Special Districts Associations, Southern Network Region, Seat B, as well
as, authorizing President Barbre, or his designee, to cast the District’s ballot. Directors
Dick, McVicker and Tamaribuchi voted in favor. This item will be presented to the Board on
June 19, 2019.
SPECIAL DISTRICT RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (SDRMA) BOARD OF

DIRECTORS ELECTION 2020
Upon MOTION by Director Tamaribuchi, seconded by Director McVicker, and carried (3-0),
the Committee recommended the Board review the candidates and authorize President
Barbre, or his designee, to cast the District’s ballot for the SDRMA Board of Directors
election. Directors Dick, McVicker and Tamaribuchi voted in favor. This item will be
presented to the Board on June 19, 2019.
INFORMATION ITEM
SOLE SOURCE JUSTIFICATION PROCUREMENT FOR MELTWATER
Mr. Hunter advised that MELTWATER will provide MWDOC with unlimited news & social
media monitoring with unlimited interactive and exportable reporting.
Page 4 of 6
Page 32 of 213
He also advised that MWDOC signed a two-year contract with MELTWATER at a 57.5%
discount.
Director Dick requested that MWDOC provide information on MELTWATER and its stability.
Mr. Hunter stated that he would provide this information at the Board Meeting on June 19,,
2019.
SB 204 (DODD) STATE WATER PROJECTS - CONTRACTS

Since this bill’s introduction, a coalition representing the State Water Contractors and other
affected parties have been working with Senator Dodd to remove some of the more
concerning issues. On May 17, SB 204 was heard in the Senate Appropriations
Committee where the author agreed to amend this bill, addressing the issues identified in
the May 7 letter to the committee.
Director Tamaribuchi asked that Mr. Syrus Devers include in his next report, information on
why MWDOC originally opposed SB 204 and why they are now supporting it.
2019 OC WATER SUMMIT RECAP

WYLAND FOUNDATION POCKET PARK(S) UPDATE

EDUCATION PROGRAMS UPDATE

Director Tamaribuchi expressed interest in knowing the percent of students that increased
their understanding of the science, geography, economics, and history of Orange County
Water by attending the school assemblies. Sarah Wilson replied that the report included in
the packet is the last one for this school year but the information will be included in next
year’s report.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS ACTIVITIES REPORT

OTHER ITEMS
Director Larry McKenney requested that an informational discussion take place regarding
groundwater recharge. He stated that it is a hot topic around the state and it is confusing.
Syrus Devers responded that he might have some resources to assist with that
conversation.
Page 5 of 6
Page 33 of 213
ADJOURNMENT
at 9:57 a.m.
Page 6 of 6
Page 34 of 213
Item No. 2d
jointly with the
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
June 20, 2019, 8:30 a.m. to 9:16 a.m.
Conference Room 102
Committee: Staff:
Director Barbre, President R. Hunter, M. Goldsby
Director Finnegan, Vice President (absent)
Director Dick
Also Present:
Director Thomas
Director McVicker
At 8:36 a.m., President Barbre called the meeting to order. In the absence of Director
Finnegan, Director Thomas served on the Committee.
No public comments were received.

At the beginning of the meeting, Staff distributed the draft agendas for the upcoming month.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS
The Committee reviewed and discussed the draft agendas for each of the meetings and
made revisions/additions as noted below.
a. Planning & Operations Committee Meeting
Although no new items were added to the agenda, the Award of Contract re Americas
Water Infrastructure Act was moved to the Administration & Finance Committee agenda.
b. Workshop Board Meeting
No new items were added to the agenda.
c. Administration & Finance Committee meeting
No new items were added to the agenda. Staff was asked to confirm that the full
deposits/payments have been made to the OPEB account.
1
Page 35 of 213
Executive Committee Minutes June 20, 2019
d. Public Affairs & Legislation Committee
No new items were added. Discussion was held regarding the LAFCO election, and
whether the Board had the desire to direct President Barbre’s vote in the election; Mr.
Barbre advised that he had already cast the District’s ballot (per Board action on May 15,
2019).
e. Executive Committee
No new items were added to the agenda.
DISCUSSION REGARDING UPCOMING ACTIVITIES OF SIGNIFICANCE
Director Dick referenced the invocation conducted at the June 19th Board meeting, noting
that the District had never previously conducted one. He suggested legal counsel provide
guidelines, so that the District stays within the law. The Committee concurred and also
recommended that in the event the Board adopts a policy regarding invocations, they be
limited to Board meetings. President Barbre referenced the U.S. Supreme Court ruling
regarding invocations, noting he would distribute it to the Board. It was noted that a policy
discussion regarding invocations would be placed on the July 10, 2019 Administration &
Finance Committee agenda.
MEMBER AGENCY RELATIONS
Discussion ensued regarding OC-70 metering issues, the Doheny Desalination Project Final
Draft EIR hearing, and the OCWD basin storage discussions with Moulton Niguel Water
District.
GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORTS
General Manager Hunter stated no new updates.
REVIEW AND DISCUSS DISTRICT AND BOARD ACTIVITIES
Discussion ensued regarding the recent Attorney General opinion regarding Director
Compensation/retirement plan contributions and the amount of money credited back on
MWDOC’s billing from Best, Best & Krieger regarding this issue; the Committee determined
no further discussion was needed.
The Executive Committee reviewed and approved a late Business Expense Report from
Kelly Hubbard.
ADJOURNMENT
at 9:16 a.m.
2
Page 36 of 213
Item No. 3a
Page 37 of 213
Page 38 of 213
Item No. 3b
Page 39 of 213
Page 40 of 213
Page 41 of 213
Page 42 of 213
Page 43 of 213
Page 44 of 213
Page 45 of 213
Page 46 of 213
Page 47 of 213
Page 48 of 213
Page 49 of 213
Page 50 of 213
Page 51 of 213
Page 52 of 213
Page 53 of 213
Item No. 3c
Page 54 of 213
Page 55 of 213
Page 56 of 213
Page 57 of 213
Page 58 of 213
Item No. 3d
MUNICIPAL WATER DIST OF ORANGE COUNTY Account Report for the Period
PARS Post-Employment Benefits Trust 5/1/2019 to 5/31/2019
Rob Hunter
General Manager
Municipal Water Dist of Orange County
18700 Ward Street
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Account Summary
Beginning Balance as Ending
of Balance as of
Source 5/1/2019 Contributions Earnings Expenses Distributions Transfers 5/31/2019
OPEB 1001 $2,187,307.30 $0.00 -$55,347.91 $455.69 $0.00 $0.00 $2,131,503.70

PENSION 1002 $214,964.34 $0.00 -$5,439.49 $44.78 $0.00 $0.00 $209,480.07
Totals $2,402,271.64 $0.00 -$60,787.40 $500.47 $0.00 $0.00 $2,340,983.77
Investment Selection
Source
OPEB Moderate HighMark PLUS

PENSION Moderate HighMark PLUS
Investment Objective
Source
The dual goals of the Moderate Strategy are growth of principal and income. It is expected that dividend and interest income will comprise a
OPEB significant portion of total return, although growth through capital appreciation is equally important. The portfolio will be allocated between
equity and fixed income investments.
The dual goals of the Moderate Strategy are growth of principal and income. It is expected that dividend and interest income will comprise a
PENSION significant portion of total return, although growth through capital appreciation is equally important. The portfolio will be allocated between
equity and fixed income investments.
Investment Return
Annualized Return
Source 1-Month 3-Months 1-Year 3-Years 5-Years 10-Years Plan's Inception Date
OPEB -2.53% 0.51% 3.02% 6.79% 4.90% - 10/26/2011

PENSION -2.53% 0.51% - - - - 7/31/2018
Information as provided by US Bank, Trustee for PARS; Not FDIC Insured; No Bank Guarantee; May Lose Value
Past performance does not guarantee future results. Performance returns may not reflect the deduction of applicable fees, which could reduce returns. Information is deemed reliable but may be subject to change.
Investment Return: Annualized rate of return is the return on an investment over a period other than one year multiplied or divided to give a comparable one-year return.
Account balances are inclusive of Trust Administration, Trustee and Investment Management fees
Headquarters - 4350 Von Karman Ave., Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 800.540.6369 Fax 949.250.1250 www.pars.org
Page 59 of 213
Municipal Water District of Orange County
Item No. 3e
WATER USE EFFICIENCY PROJECTS
Cash Flow as of 06/30/19
Jul 2018 Aug 2018 Sep 2018 Oct 2018 Nov 2018 Dec 2018 Jan 2019 Feb 2019 Mar 2019 Apr 2019 May 2019 Jun 2019 TOTALS
Cash - Beginning Balance $ 280,031.97 $ 273,554.92 $ 407,387.74 $ 170,892.71 $ 70,974.64 $ (267,020.46) $ (231,676.04) $ (243,188.18) $ (199,074.20) $ (255,903.10) $ (281,461.19) $ (590,152.88)
REVENUES:
BUREC 4,605.00 111.00 102,395.93 162,953.35 6,090.00 $ 276,155.28
City of Brea -
City of Buena Park 222.00 211.00 433.00
City of Fountain Valley 222.00 1,376.29 663.05 111.00 222.00 333.00 111.00 222.00 3,260.34
City of Fullerton -
City of Garden Grove -
City of Huntington Beach 598.99 40.00 638.99
City of La Habra 222.00 222.00 444.00
City of San Clemente 3,244.99 9,442.99 1,683.99 3,312.00 1,245.00 3,694.36 2,149.28 854.55 603.00 580.00 26,810.16
City of San Juan Capistrano -
City of Santa Ana -
City of Tustin -
City of Newport Beach 3,343.80 1,980.57 2,314.05 91.45 94.75 162.00 222.00 485.05 8,693.67
City of Orange 444.00 913.75 1,134.10 173.85 428.00 111.00 444.00 222.00 3,870.70
City of Westminster 333.00 539.00 555.00 666.00 111.00 111.00 222.00 2,537.00
County of Orange -
Department of Water Resources 32,990.80 1,398.60 34,389.40
East Orange County Water District 34,722.01 34,722.01
El Toro Water District 774.00 2,544.00 4,063.10 290.00 104.00 1,928.80 883.99 1,164.99 130.00 134.99 12,017.87
Irvine Ranch Water District 8,271.11 47,878.73 11,080.04 98,495.70 108,980.16 11,960.75 31,806.10 14,474.81 34,189.42 3,475.77 21,566.57 392,179.16
Laguna Beach County Water District 15.00 30.00 45.00 30.00 120.00
Mesa Water District 66.82 197.98 170.00 140.00 356.00 284.01 140.00 1,354.81
Metropolitan Water District 191,093.43 27,066.04 14,020.41 204,584.98 94,158.08 15,553.87 546,476.81
Moulton Niguel Water District 38,341.68 7,726.23 10,281.98 10,872.48 21,400.00 32,011.70 53,277.39 51,455.67 27,631.02 7,531.69 13,425.97 273,955.81
Orange County Water District -
Santa Margarita Water District -
Trabuco Canyon Water District 605.76 18.98 100.00 145.78 114.04 984.56
Yorba Linda Water District 284.07 211.85 333.00 111.00 939.92
Miscellaneous Revenues
Miscellaneous -
Interest Revenue 2,228.14 1,587.30 3,815.44
Total Revenues 91,568.53 262,233.99 13,297.02 134,140.44 128,321.65 172,720.95 246,434.71 238,792.63 76,074.61 193,748.07 12,652.24 53,814.09 $ 1,623,798.93
EXPENDITURES:
Budget Based Tiered Rates, Raftelis 2,220.00 1,050.00 1,800.00 11,960.00 730.00 5,150.00 2,080.00 24,990.00
Droplet 8,250.00 8,250.00
IRWD -
Golden State Water Company -
City of Huntington Beach -
Laguna Beach CWD -
Metropolitan Water District 28,091.13 25,193.39 87,250.95 24,411.51 24,769.89 21,283.68 211,000.55
Mission RCD 20,060.11 18,627.78 13,404.64 2,770.71 2,324.45 2,121.45 5,774.85 1,529.67 5,570.97 72,184.63
Multi Family HET Direct 4,800.00 75,975.00 100,275.00 81,300.00 127,420.00 389,770.00
Pollard Water 44,516.38 3,045.00 3,045.00 50,606.38
Recycled Water On Site Retrofit program 11,099.50 1,384.50 12,484.00
South Coast Water District 18,800.00 18,800.00
Spray to Drip program 690.45 4,310.08 5,308.76 1,129.60 1,320.58 413.25 567.80 1,060.00 1,609.06 2,033.84 9,849.13 926.95 29,219.50
SMWD 34,905.00 34,905.00
Turf Removal 32,139.00 58,464.60 177,399.11 117,228.82 337,478.95 30,263.28 154,566.83 58,814.62 100,324.71 216,762.32 287,406.45 42,128.33 1,612,977.02
Water Savings Incentive Program 15,000.00 15,000.00
Miscellaneous Expenses
Interest Expense 67.77 1,197.58 1,265.35
Salary & Benefit 5,563.51 1,700.00 1,785.00 1,275.00 2,040.00 1,020.00 425.00 510.00 1,275.00 15,593.51
Page 60 of 213
Total Expenditures 98,045.58 128,401.17 249,792.05 234,058.51 466,316.75 137,376.53 257,946.85 194,678.65 132,903.51 219,306.16 321,343.93 56,876.25 $ 2,497,045.94
Cash - Ending Balance $ 273,554.92 $ 407,387.74 $ 170,892.71 $ 70,974.64 $ (267,020.46) $ (231,676.04) $ (243,188.18) $ (199,074.20) $ (255,903.10) $ (281,461.19) $ (590,152.88) $ (593,215.04)
O:\Finance\A&F COMM\FY 18-19\CF by Vendor.xlsx Page 1

Item No. 4
COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AND
BUDGET COMPARATIVE
JULY 1, 2018 THRU MAY 31, 2019
Page 61 of 213
Combined Balance Sheet
As of May 31, 2019
ASSETS Amount
Cash in Bank 107,749.96
Investments 13,399,865.68
Accounts Receivable 19,950,166.79
Accounts Receivable - Other 152,967.14
Accrued Interest Receivable 97,155.71
Prepaids/Deposits 227,523.77
Leasehold Improvements 3,735,829.68
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment 563,307.34
Less: Accum Depreciation (2,978,329.24)
TOTAL ASSETS $35,256,236.83
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES

Liabilities
Accounts Payable 21,441,272.08
Accounts Payable - Other 62.39
Accrued Salaries and Benefits Payable 357,583.41
Other Liabilities 381,176.94
Unearned Revenue 954,311.68
Total Liabilities 23,134,406.50
Fund Balances
Restricted Fund Balances
Water Fund - T2C 1,003,955.82
Total Restricted Fund Balances 1,003,955.82
Designated Reserves
General Operations 3,341,910.36
Grant & Project Cash Flow 1,500,000.00
Election Expense 608,000.00
Building Repair 385,407.45
OPEB 297,147.00
Total Designated Reserves 6,132,464.81
General Fund 3,072,149.80

General Fund Capital 525,009.00
WEROC Capital 104,948.58
WEROC 183,846.12
Total Unrestricted Fund Balances 10,018,418.31
Excess Revenue over Expenditures

Operating Fund 2,087,921.48
Other Funds (988,465.28)
Total Fund Balance 12,121,830.33
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES 35,256,236.83
Page 62 of 213
Revenues and Expenditures Budget Comparative Report
General Fund
From July 2018 thru May 2019
Annual Budget
Month to Date Year to Date Budget % Used Encumbrance Remaining
REVENUES
Retail Connection Charge 0.00 7,697,005.75 7,697,006.00 100.00% 0.00 0.25

Ground Water Customer Charge 0.00 499,012.00 499,012.00 100.00% 0.00 0.00
Water rate revenues 0.00 8,196,017.75 8,196,018.00 100.00% 0.00 0.25
Interest Revenue 44,545.56 480,396.56 390,000.00 123.18% 0.00 (90,396.56)
Subtotal 44,545.56 8,676,414.31 8,586,018.00 101.05% 0.00 (90,396.31)
Choice Programs 0.00 1,085,862.13 1,174,750.00 92.43% 0.00 88,887.87

Miscellaneous Income 0.00 23,512.44 3,000.00 783.75% 0.00 (20,512.44)
School Contracts 17,085.27 88,352.67 102,031.00 86.59% 0.00 13,678.33
Gain on Sale of Investments 0.00 3.61 0.00 0.00% 0.00 (3.61)
Transfer‐In From Reserve 0.00 0.00 5,276.00 0.00% 0.00 5,276.00
Subtotal 17,085.27 1,197,730.85 1,285,057.00 93.20% 0.00 87,326.15
TOTAL REVENUES 61,630.83 9,874,145.16 9,871,075.00 100.03% 0.00 (3,070.16)
Page 63 of 213
General Fund
Annual Budget
Month to Date Year to Date Budget % Used Encumbrance Remaining
EXPENSES
Salaries & Wages 240,090.52 3,133,776.23 3,522,982.00 88.95% 0.00 389,205.77
Salaries & Wages ‐ Grant Recovery 0.00 (3,837.94) (6,300.00) 60.92% 0.00 (2,462.06)
Salaries & Wages ‐ Recovery (1,071.00) (9,139.20) 0.00 0.00% 0.00 9,139.20
Director's Compensation 15,903.84 240,807.30 255,360.00 94.30% 0.00 14,552.70
MWD Representation 8,107.84 150,840.39 145,920.00 103.37% 0.00 (4,920.39)
Employee Benefits 85,110.18 968,192.71 1,108,564.00 87.34% 0.00 140,371.29
CalPers Unfunded Liability Contribution 0.00 207,000.00 207,000.00 100.00% 0.00 0.00
Employee Benefits ‐ Grant Recovery 0.00 (875.57) 0.00 0.00% 0.00 875.57
Employee Benefits ‐ Recovery (204.00) (1,740.80) 0.00 0.00% 0.00 1,740.80
Director's Benefits 10,054.78 85,735.47 94,767.00 90.47% 0.00 9,031.53
Health Insurance for Retirees 4,048.74 56,405.25 70,519.00 79.99% 0.00 14,113.75
Training Expense 339.98 8,004.21 25,000.00 32.02% 18,000.00 (1,004.21)
Tuition Reimbursement 0.00 2,856.28 5,000.00 57.13% 0.00 2,143.72
Temporary Help Expense 0.00 0.00 5,000.00 0.00% 0.00 5,000.00
Personnel Expenses 362,380.88 4,838,024.33 5,433,812.00 89.04% 18,000.00 577,787.67
Engineering Expense 42,296.39 306,799.09 330,000.00 92.97% 257,274.07 (234,073.16)
Legal Expense 28,171.68 201,482.04 255,000.00 79.01% 53,517.96 0.00
Audit Expense 0.00 19,380.00 29,000.00 66.83% 0.00 9,620.00
Professional Services 85,822.53 916,299.44 1,430,758.00 64.04% 327,482.25 186,976.31
Professional Fees 156,290.60 1,443,960.57 2,044,758.00 70.62% 638,274.28 (37,476.85)
Conference‐Staff (725.00) 21,981.06 42,880.00 51.26% 0.00 20,898.94
Conference‐Directors 770.00 14,196.31 24,930.00 56.94% 0.00 10,733.69
Travel & Accom.‐Staff 4,925.76 51,931.02 99,600.00 52.14% 0.00 47,668.98
Travel & Accom.‐Directors 3,000.36 27,154.25 51,750.00 52.47% 0.00 24,595.75
Travel & Conference 7,971.12 115,262.64 219,160.00 52.59% 0.00 103,897.36
Membership/Sponsorship 0.00 139,755.53 141,662.00 98.65% 0.00 1,906.47
CDR Support 0.00 47,044.26 47,044.00 100.00% 0.00 (0.26)
Dues & Memberships 0.00 186,799.79 188,706.00 98.99% 0.00 1,906.21
Business Expense 355.06 2,596.60 5,600.00 46.37% 0.00 3,003.40

Maintenance Office 7,834.81 88,595.58 132,796.00 66.72% 42,830.58 1,369.84
Building Repair & Maintenance 686.85 11,098.42 20,000.00 55.49% 11,630.54 (2,728.96)
Storage Rental & Equipment Lease 209.70 3,304.60 3,460.00 95.51% 155.40 0.00
Office Supplies 1,272.35 25,023.86 36,000.00 69.51% 1,893.27 9,082.87
Postage/Mail Delivery 861.21 9,150.65 9,000.00 101.67% 1,424.99 (1,575.64)
Subscriptions & Books 0.00 596.65 1,500.00 39.78% 0.00 903.35
Reproduction Expense 6,049.81 17,146.01 33,073.00 51.84% 0.00 15,926.99
Maintenance‐Computers 520.91 4,159.27 8,000.00 51.99% 1,250.94 2,589.79
Software Purchase 2,260.98 36,109.16 45,861.00 78.74% 0.00 9,751.84
Software Support 3,643.26 39,544.96 51,934.00 76.14% 600.00 11,789.04
Computers and Equipment 0.00 9,391.24 11,850.00 79.25% 0.00 2,458.76
Automotive Expense 1,371.34 18,426.06 17,262.00 106.74% 0.00 (1,164.06)
Toll Road Charges 10.18 821.27 1,000.00 82.13% 0.00 178.73
Insurance Expense 8,628.85 98,897.79 138,500.00 71.41% 0.00 39,602.21
Utilities ‐ Telephone 1,936.66 20,843.63 20,178.00 103.30% 331.23 (996.86)
Bank Fees 146.78 4,497.52 21,225.00 21.19% 0.00 16,727.48
Miscellaneous Expense 179,527.29 250,699.11 119,205.00 210.31% 1,500.00 (132,994.11)
MWDOC's Contrb. to WEROC 15,948.33 200,919.67 216,868.00 92.65% 0.00 15,948.33
Depreciation Expense 2,822.34 31,045.69 0.00 0.00% 0.00 (31,045.69)
Other Expenses 234,086.71 872,867.74 893,312.00 97.71% 61,616.95 (41,172.69)
Election Expense 0.00 196,135.57 304,000.00 64.52% 0.00 107,864.43
Building Expense 5,673.03 101,340.89 531,827.00 19.06% 157,311.68 273,174.43
Capital Acquisition 9,300.00 31,832.15 255,500.00 12.46% 220.00 223,447.85
TOTAL EXPENSES 775,702.34 7,786,223.68 9,871,075.00 78.88% 875,422.91 1,209,428.41
NET INCOME (LOSS) (714,071.51) 2,087,921.48 0.00
Page 64 of 213
Water Fund
Annual Budget
Month to Date Year to Date Budget % Used Remaining
WATER REVENUES
Water Sales 9,190,698.40 137,590,179.30 188,976,940.00 72.81% 51,386,760.70

Readiness to Serve Charge 839,273.57 9,615,930.73 10,902,178.00 88.20% 1,286,247.27
Capacity Charge CCF 299,996.67 3,427,468.35 3,854,976.00 88.91% 427,507.65
SCP/SAC Pipeline Surcharge 17,999.18 295,712.08 365,000.00 81.02% 69,287.92
Interest 1,948.84 20,053.29 13,000.00 154.26% (7,053.29)
TOTAL WATER REVENUES 10,349,916.66 150,949,343.75 204,112,094.00 73.95% 53,162,750.25
WATER PURCHASES
Water Sales 9,190,698.40 137,590,179.30 188,976,940.00 72.81% 51,386,760.70

Readiness to Serve Charge 839,273.57 9,615,930.73 10,902,178.00 88.20% 1,286,247.27
Capacity Charge CCF 299,996.67 3,427,468.35 3,854,976.00 88.91% 427,507.65
SCP/SAC Pipeline Surcharge 17,999.18 295,712.08 365,000.00 81.02% 69,287.92
TOTAL WATER PURCHASES 10,347,967.82 150,929,290.46 204,099,094.00 73.95% 53,169,803.54
EXCESS OF REVENUE OVER

EXPENDITURES 1,948.84 20,053.29 13,000.00
Page 65 of 213
WUE Revenues and Expenditures (Actuals vs Budget)
Year to Date Annual

Actual Budget % Used
Spray To Drip Conversion

Revenues 21,191.76 128,540.00 16.49%
Expenses 33,072.52 128,540.00 25.73%
Excess of Revenues over Expenditures (11,880.76) 0.00
Member Agency Administered Passthru

Revenues 408,570.00 100,000.00 408.57%
Expenses 408,570.00 100,000.00 408.57%
Excess of Revenues over Expenditures 0.00 0.00
ULFT Rebate Program

Revenues 15,877.68 43,500.00 36.50%
Expenses 15,877.68 43,500.00 36.50%
HECW Rebate Program

Revenues 213,263.44 425,000.00 50.18%
Expenses 213,480.86 425,000.00 50.23%
Excess of Revenues over Expenditures (217.42) 0.00
CII Rebate Program

Revenues 110,847.21 462,500.00 23.97%
Expenses 110,730.00 462,500.00 23.94%
Turf Removal Program

Revenues 579,250.52 1,345,000.00 43.07%
Expenses 1,598,974.66 1,345,000.00 118.88%
Excess of Revenues over Expenditures (1,019,724.14) 0.00
Comprehensive Landscape (CLWUE)

Revenues 88,477.90 366,840.00 24.12%
Expenses 120,755.87 366,840.00 32.92%
Large Landscape Survey Program

Revenues 2,114.56 64,000.00 3.30%
Expenses 13,574.03 64,000.00 21.21%
WSIP ‐ Industrial Program

Revenues 0.00 36,755.00 0.00%
Expenses 15,000.00 36,755.00 40.81%
WUE Projects
Revenues 1,439,593.07 2,972,135.00 48.44%
Expenses 2,530,035.62 2,972,135.00 85.13%
Excess of Revenues over Expenditures (1,090,442.55) 0.00
WEROC
Revenues 392,299.67 489,160.00 80.20%
Expenses 327,002.35 489,160.00 66.85%
Excess of Revenues over Expenditures 65,297.32 0.00
Page 66 of 213
Item No. 5
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM

July 17, 2019
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Planning & Operations Committee

(Directors Yoo Schneider, Dick, Tamaribuchi)
Robert Hunter, General Manager Staff Contact: J. Berg, Director of WUE
SUBJECT: Pressure Regulating Valve Replacement Pilot Program
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of Directors to authorize the General Manager to enter into
professional services agreements with EcoTech Services, Inc. and Large Plumbing to
provide pressure regulating valve testing and replacement services at a cost not to exceed
$249,850.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Committee concurred with staff recommendation.
SUMMARY
The proposed Pressure Regulating Valve Replacement Pilot Program (PRV Pilot Program)
will utilize contracted plumbers to replace non-functioning PRVs at single-family residences
that are within high-pressure areas. By reducing pressure, plumbing fixtures in the home will
flow at lower rates, thereby reducing water use, and piping will be protected, lowering the
likelihood of leaks. This PRV Pilot Program will function as a water-saving and leak-
prevention effort and, in addition, MWDOC will perform a technical evaluation of the
Program. This analysis will provide valuable insight to the water savings potential of the
Program, filling a void in applicable research, and will be shared with other agencies
interested in implementing similar programs. If significant water savings are found, staff will
Budgeted (Y/N): Y Budgeted amount: $249,850.00 Core __ Choice X

Action item amount: $249,850.00 Line item:
Fiscal Impact (explain if unbudgeted): The proposed PRV Pilot Program will be funded
through a combination of Metropolitan Member Agency Administered (MAA) Program funds
and Proposition 1 IRWM Grant funds, totaling $249,850.00. The MAA funds were approved
on Wednesday, March 20, 2019 for $132,500. Proposition 1 Grant agreements will be
executed in the first quarter of 2020 and total $117,350 for both the North and South County
efforts.
Page 67 of 213
Page 2
evaluate the most effective long-term program implementation framework for broader
implementation.
DETAILED REPORT
It is estimated that PRVs have a useful life of ten to twelve years. When PRVs fail, they
usually fail in the open position, thereby increasing indoor water pressure to street pressure.
As a result, all plumbing fixtures, appliances, and leaks are likely flowing at higher rates
causing an increase in water use. Replacing a defective PRV will reduce home pressure for
indoor water use, thus preserving and protecting water using devices, appliances, and piping.
The California Plumbing Code requires homes and businesses to have a pressure
regulating valve (PRV) when the water supply pressure or street pressure is 80 psi or
greater.
According to the Uniform Plumbing Code Illustrated Training Manual:
[a] limit of 80 psi (551.6 kPa) is the maximum static pressure of any water
supply system. The reason for this is to reduce water hammer,
unnecessary use of water, splashing, excessive discharge of pressure
relief valves, and to protect appliance and fixture valves and mechanisms
from pressure that exceeds their design limits. Any installation with
pressures above 80 psi will require a pressure regulating valve to limit
the pressure to 80 psi or below.
Staff is proposing implementation of a PRV Pilot Program, in partnership with member

agencies such as the City of Brea, Mesa Water, and Santa Margarita Water District, to
evaluate the viability of a PRV replacement program to save water. The PRV Pilot Program
will rely on licensed plumber(s) to canvas targeted neighborhoods known to have high
pressure. With the homeowner’s permission, the licensed plumber will test the PRV. If the
test results in a failed PRV, the licensed plumber will offer to replace it with a new one at no
cost to the homeowner’s owner. Pre and post retrofit water use will be collected and
analyzed by MWDOC staff to quantify water savings.
Request for Proposals Process

Staff composed and distributed a Request for Proposals (RFP) outlining the desired
services and schedule for the PRV Pilot Program. On March 7, 2019, the RFP was
distributed to more than 150 licensed plumbing contractors capable of providing the needed
services. On March 20, 2019, staff held an RFQ informational meeting to review the RFP
with potential respondents and give them an opportunity to ask questions regarding the
desired work to be performed. Four plumbing contractors attended this meeting. The RFP
required proposals to be submitted to MWDOC on March 28, 2019. Six plumbing
contractors submitted proposals for the PRV Pilot Program: Coast View Plumbing, Inc.,
EcoTech Services, Inc., Justin Time Plumbing, Large Plumbing, Severson Plumbing
Services, Inc., and T.E. Roberts, Inc.
All of the plumbing contractor’s proposals described their capabilities to perform the
required services of the PRV Pilot Program. All were deemed qualified to perform the
services based on verification of their credentials, proposed cost, and references. Table 1
below lists the plumbing contractor and their fees to replace a defective PRV.
Page 68 of 213
Page 3
Table 1
Pressure Regulating Valve Fee Structure
Plumbing Contractor PRV Replacement Cost

Large Plumbing $550.00
EcoTech Services, Inc. $560.00
Severson Plumbing $590.00
Services, Inc.
Justin Time Plumbing $625.00
Coast View Plumbing, Inc. $678.00
T.E. Roberts, Inc. $927.00
MWDOC proposes to hire two licensed Contractors, Large Plumbing and EcoTech Services,
Inc. to perform the needed services of the PRV Replacement Program. Approximately 560
sites in high-pressure-zone-designated neighborhoods in Orange County will be offered PRV
testing. These areas will be identified by the participating water agencies, and it will be the
responsibility of the licensed Contractor(s) to determine if the existing PRV has failed and, if
applicable, replace it with a new PRV.
Table 2 outlines the unit costs for sites receiving a PRV Replacement and sites
receiving a PRV Test. PRV Replacement sites include PRV testing, and parts and labor
for replacing a malfunctioning PRV. PRV Test sites receive only a PRV Test when a
Test result verifies a properly functioning PRV.
Table 2
Unit Costs for Sites Receiving a PRV Replacement and
Sites Receiving a PRV Test
Type of Site Visit Cost Per Estimated # Total

Site of Sites Cost
Site visit resulting in PRV $560 390 (70%) $218,400
Replacement
Site visit resulting in PRV Test $185 170 (30%) $31,450
Total 560 $249,850
Research Evaluation
The PRV Pilot Program will serve as a data collection and analysis effort that will include a
Program evaluation to supplement the limited data available regarding water savings
associated with PRV replacement. The evaluation will quantify water saved through the PRV
Pilot Program and analyze the spatial distribution and density of homes in need of PRV
replacement, ultimately contributing to determining the feasibility of a future PRV
Replacement Program. It is roughly estimated that 30% of visited sites may not need a PRV
Page 69 of 213
Page 4
replaced; however, this PRV Pilot Program will provide an opportunity to gather data to firm
up this number, determine the amount of water saved when a PRV is replaced, and provide
awareness of the issue to the homeowner.
Funding
The PRV Pilot Program will be implemented using a combination of funding from
Metropolitan (through their Member Agency Administered (MAA) program) and Grant funds
from both North and South Orange County Proposition 1 IRWM funding.
Table 3 provides a summary of the funding partnership for the PRV Pilot Program.
Metropolitan has approved $132,500 through the Metropolitan-Funded, Member Agency-
Administered funding allocated to MWDOC. This was done through a proposal to
Metropolitan and was approved on March 20, 2019. Proposition 1 Grant Funds requested
total $117,350 from the North (SAWPA) and South (County of Orange) funding areas.
Proposition 1 Projects that include PRV replacement are currently in the funding approval
stage within both of the IRWM processes. Together, the MAA and Proposition 1 funding
totals $249,850.
Table 3
PRV Replacement Program Funding Plan
Funding Source Cost Per Site

Metropolitan thru its MAA program $132,500
Proposition 1 IRWM Grant Funds $117,350
Total $249,850
BOARD OPTIONS
Option #1: Staff recommends the Board of Directors authorize the General Manager to
enter into professional services agreements with EcoTech Services, Inc. and Large
Plumbing to provide pressure regulating valve testing and replacement services at a
cost not to exceed $249,850.
Fiscal Impact: The proposed PRV Pilot Program will be funded through a combination of
Metropolitan Member Agency Administered (MAA) Program funds and Proposition 1 IRWM
Grant funds, totaling $249,850.00. The MAA funds were approved on Wednesday March
20, 2019 for $132,500. Proposition 1 Grant agreements will be executed in the first quarter
of 2020 and total $117,350 for both the North and South County efforts.
Business Analysis: Allows staff to evaluate a potential new water savings opportunity.
Option #2: No Action
Fiscal Impact: None
Page 70 of 213
Page 5
Business Analysis: N/A
Option # 1
Page 71 of 213
Item No. 6

July 17, 2019
FROM: Administration & Finance Committee

(Directors Thomas, Finnegan, McVicker)
Robert J. Hunter, General Manager
SUBJECT: Award Contract for Computer Room Air Conditioner Replacement

Project
It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve entering into the subject agreement
for replacement of the MWDOC administration building computer room air conditioner:
 Make a CEQA finding that the project is categorically exempt under: Class 1-Existing
Facilities.
 Award ACCO Engineered Systems “MWDOC Computer Room Air Conditioner
Replacement Project” contract in the amount of $75,818.00 (including Alternate #2)
plus 10% contingency.
SUMMARY
Staff is seeking Board authorization to proceed with replacement of the administration

building computer room air conditioner which has reached the end of its useful life.
DETAILED REPORT
Staff informed the Board at the January 21, 2019 PAL Committee that recent issues with
the computer room air conditioner led to an investigation that determined the air
conditioning system was quickly reaching the end of its service life and needed to be
replaced. Rosenberg & Associates Consulting Engineers was awarded a sole source
contract to provide technical services, and to prepare plans, specifications, and bid
Budgeted amount: $75,818 (FY 2019-

Budgeted (Y/N): Y Core X Choice __
20)
Action item amount: Line item: 19-8811
Fiscal Impact (explain if unbudgeted):
Page 72 of 213
Page 2
documents for the replacement of the air conditioning system on a time & materials basis
not to exceed $15,000.
Project Bidding
The job was advertised for bidding, a non-mandatory pre-bid meeting was held, and formal
bids were received from 2 bidders on June 26, 2019. One of the bids was determined to be
non-responsive as the bid was not submitted on the required District bid forms, nor was a
Bid Bond included with the submittal. The apparent low bidder is ACCO Engineered
Systems, Inc. ACCO has previously provided mechanical services to MWDOC with good
results. Staff is in the process of completing paperwork associated with the bid package and
should be fully completed by the time of the Board Meeting.
This work will be completed in coordination with the electrical system rehabilitation work
with anticipated project completion in mid-October 2019.
Bid Summary
1. ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc. Pasadena $75,818
2. Prime Aire, Inc. Chatsworth **$87,100
** Deemed non-responsive, as the bid was not submitted on required District Bid Forms,
and did not include a Bid Bond.
Engineer’s Estimate $85,000
Low Bid Schedule

Unit Of Item
No. Item Description Measure Cost
1. Mobilization / Demobilization LS $7,343
2. Remove existing Computer Server Room rooftop single LS $3,014
package heating/cooling unit. Existing roof pad shall be re-
used for new unit.
3. Install a new 3-ton in-ceiling/rooftop split system precision LS $39,182
cooling unit.
4. Replace and modify ductwork as required for connection to LS $603
existing terminals.
5. Provide electrical connection from Breaker Panel to new split LS $6,214
system at roof and above hallway ceiling. Coordinate with
Owner’s electrical contractor as required to provide a fully
functional system
6. Structural supports, including vibration isolation and seismic LS $2,162
restraints.
7. Retrofit vibration isolation supports for two existing in-ceiling LS NA
air conditioning units to remain, suitable for office occupancy
Noise Criterion levels
8. Provide new Variable Air Volume-terminal and duct LS Add
connection from building HVAC system supply and return Alternate *
ducts to Server Room distribution system. Provide automatic
Page 73 of 213
Page 3
dampers and controls to open and operate the Variable Air

Volume terminal unit when room temperature exceeds 72
degrees F (adjustable via Energy Management System).
9. Provide all Automated Logic Controller (ALC) controls, LS $10,320
connect to existing ALC front-end, as indicated in the
specifications.
* ACCO Proposes to provide additional alternates:

1. Temporary Cooling for Computer Room up to 1 month $2,800
2. Provide & Install dedicated VAV Zone box w/ALC controls for Comp. Rm $6,980
3. Perform work after hours (Excluding Sundays/Holidays) $8,880
Financial Summary
1. Design, Plans, Specifications and Construction Support Services $15,000.00
2. Construction Contract $75,818.00
3. City Permit $910.83
Total Project Cost $91,728.83
BOARD OPTIONS
Option #1
 Make a CEQA finding that the project is categorically exempt under: Class 1-Existing
Facilities.
 Award ACCO Engineered Systems MWDOC Computer Room Air Conditioner
Replacement Project” contract in the amount of $75,818.00 plus 10% contingency.
Option #2
 Do not authorize the work. Continue to risk a failure of the computer room cooling
system and possible interruption to business operations for an indeterminate amount
of time until the system can be replaced.
Option #1
Page 74 of 213
Item No. 7

July 17, 2019


Staff Contact: Kelly Hubbard, Director of Emergency Management
SUBJECT: Award of Consulting Contract for Member Agency Compliance with

the America’s Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA)
It is recommended that the Board of Directors authorize the General Manager to:
1. Enter into a consulting contract with Herndon Solutions Group (HSG) in the
estimated amount of, and not to exceed $4.4 million (costs are contingent upon final
Participating Agency commitments and include a 10% contingency for Phases 2 &
3).
a. Phase 1 - $412,000
b. Phase 2 - $2,289,000
c. Phase 3 - $1,685,000
2. Authorize the General Manager to enter into Letter Agreements or Contracts with up
to 28 of our participating agencies (including two of the three cities) for cost
recovery of the expenditures.
3. Authorize MWDOC’s commitment to the AWIA process at an estimated cost of
$131,000 (includes the 10% contingency), with combined funds from engineering,
WEROC and finance to be provided.
4. Authorize the General Manager to hire a part-time temporary position within WEROC
to coordinate the consultant’s efforts with Participating Agencies. Position will be
charged back to participating agencies.
Budgeted (Y/N): N Budgeted amount: $0 Core _X_ Choice X

Action item amount: $4.5 Million (est. Line item:
$4.4 Million for the contract & est. 2000-41-7040 (Finance)
$100,00 for temporary staffing); est.
$131,000 for WEROC/MWDOC cost 2000-21-7040 (Engineering)
share 2010-25-7040 (WEROC)
Fiscal Impact (explain if unbudgeted): The project total of approximately $4.5 million
will be a cost share amongst participating agencies. WEROC and MWDOC’s share will
come from their respective reserves.
Page 75 of 213
Page 2
SUMMARY
The American Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) requires all drinking water utilities to conduct
a Risk and Resilience Assessment (RRA) of their community water systems and develop a
corresponding Emergency Response Plan (ERP). All drinking water utilities with greater
than 3,000 customers, must complete these efforts and self-certify their compliance within
the next 2 years depending on the size of the agency.
WEROC received, reviewed and ranked 7 proposals and recommends an award to

Herndon Solutions Group (HSG) in an amount up to, with a not to exceed of $4.4 million,
depending on how many of our agencies participate in the process. This project and
contract has been set up in a manner to allow agencies to opt in or out of each phase of
service at their choice and therefore is an elective service being offered by WEROC and
MWDOC. The group effort should result in a high level of efficiency in the contracting and
completion of the work.
DETAILED REPORT
On October 23, 2018, Congress signed into law the America’s Water Infrastructure Act
(AWIA) (S.3021, Law 115-270). Per Section 2013 of Title II, the AWIA requires utilities to
conduct Risk and Resilience Assessments (RRA) of their community water systems and
develop a corresponding Emergency Response Plan (ERP). Upon completion of the RRA,
the utility is to submit self-certification to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) indicating that the RRA, in compliance with AWIA, is complete. Within six (6)
months of submitting the RRA certification letter, the community water system is required to
submit a self-certification to USEPA for the corresponding ERP. The legislation requires
these documents to be updated every 5 years. The compliance due dates are:
Population Emergency Response Plan

Risk Assessment
Served* (ERP)**
≥100,000 March 31, 2020 September 30, 2020
50,000-99,999 December 31, 2020 June 30, 2021
3,301-49,999 June 30, 2021 December 30, 2021

*Population served is based on CA SWRCB DDW population numbers associated with the Water System’s ID.
**ERP certifications are due six months from submittal of the risk assessment certification. Dates shown above are
based on a utility submitting a risk assessment on the final due date. Penalties for missing deadlines is up to $25,000 per
day.
Page 76 of 213
Page 3
WEROC Project Coordination to Date
WEROC has taken on this extremely large task to assist participating agencies by creating
a shared services project with a single contract and reimbursement concept in a manner
similar to completion of the Urban Water Management Plans, wherein MWDOC completed
25 plans via a single consultant contract. WEROC has taken the following steps to date:
 WEROC reached out to Member Agencies to determine level of interest in a joint RFP
process and contract. Initially 29 of the 31 water utilities in OC indicated their interest,
and 28 have continued to participate at this time. Agencies not participating are:
Anaheim, Golden State Water Company, and Orange County Water District.
 WEROC developed, in coordination with our agencies, a Request for Proposals (RFP)
package. This effort took considerable time and effort from staff to organize the effort in
a manner where multiple consultants could be selected, multiple agencies could elect to
participate, or not, and where pricing breaks could be employed for conducting services
for 5 or more agencies by a single consultant.
 WEROC received 7 proposals that were technically competitive, but showed a high
range in potential costs (ranging from about $4 million to about $10 million combined for
28 agencies).
 In coordination with volunteer representatives from 4 of our agencies, the proposals
were reviewed, evaluated and ranked. This write up will provide a summary and
recommendation for award of contract for all phases of work to one consultant for all
participating agencies. Due to some costs for each phase being shared costs, the final
contract prices for each phase are pending final Participating Agency commitment.
Contract costs presented today are based on the highest contract costs possible.
 Due to the overall timeline and deadlines for the project, WEROC staff started the
process of collecting the documents and data that is needed from the Participating
Agencies for all Phases of the project.
 Continue to coordinate with our agencies to begin the process of seeking financial
commitments from up to 28 agencies in Orange County. This could result in a contract
on the order of about $4.4 million over the next two and half years.
Project Approach
WEROC staff proposed a 3 Phase process to meet the AWIA requirements. Below is an
abbreviated outline of the proposed consultant’s approach to the 3 Phases. The full
proposed scope of work is attached.
1. Phase 1 Design and Complete a Crosswalk Review – This first task is to determine what
resources each agency already has and what their GAPS are for compliance with the
AWIA RRA and ERP requirements. Phase 1 per agency is estimated at $15,099. The
process is essentially the same for all agencies and is not dependent on the size of an
agency. This task relies on each agency to provide all of their existing documentation
so it can be reviewed to determine its completeness, currency and applicability to the
current standards. This quote is a bit higher than we had originally estimated, however
the consultant has recommended completing this “as a best practices” review, as
Page 77 of 213
Page 4
opposed to simply a checklist. This extra level of effort and cost was supported by all
reviewing agencies, because they believe it will be a valuable ongoing tool for
emergency planning. The crosswalk will be a living document that is maintained and
updated by WEROC and its participating agencies, including other requirements, such
as SEMS, and evolve into a robust tool for ongoing evaluation and process
improvement.
2. Phase 2 Completion of the Risk and Resiliency Assessment (RRA) – The recommended
consultant has proposed this as a fixed fee for all sizes of agencies, again because the
process is essentially the same for all agencies. Additionally, the recommended
consultant provided the highest level of services in terms of quantity of assets and
threats to be reviewed per agency. The Phase 2 effort is expected to require the largest
level of effort for both the agencies and the selected consultant. While some agencies
have started to assess cyber and other risks, the RRA will support the assessment and
determination of an “all- hazards” approach to determine the risk and resilience of all
drinking water physical, operational, and cyber assets owned, utilized, or operated by
each participating agency in accordance with industry standards. The RRA will identify
and address the gaps identified under Phase I.
Three workshops will be held with each agency in the completion of their RRA:
Workshop #1 - The asset and threat characterization steps of the assessment

process will be conducted in a two-day, facilitated planning workshop held at the
participating agency’s facility. The following objectives will be completed:
 Asset Characterization
 Threat Characterization
 Consequence Analysis
 Vulnerability Analysis
 Risk/Resilience Analysis
 Risk/Resilience Management
Workshop #2 - The consequence and vulnerability analysis steps of the assessment

process will be conducted during another two-day, facilitated planning workshop to
be held at the participating agency’s facility. The following objectives will be
completed:
 Review and edit consequences and vulnerabilities. At this point, an agreed list of
critical assets, identified threats, and threat-asset pairs is required to continue the
assessment.
 Identify Dependencies and Proximity Threats.
 Identify and calculate the risk likelihoods for the critical asset-threat pairs.
Workshop #3 - The draft risk assessment baseline report will be reviewed by the
team and appropriate stakeholders during Workshop #3.
Based on all of the above, a Final Risk Assessment Baseline Report will be
prepared. RRA should be considered to be Protected Critical Infrastructure
Page 78 of 213
Page 5
Information (PCII) and each agency is encouraged to work with their legal counsel to
ensure the security of this final product.
Additionally, two to three group trainings will be provided on the RRA process to train
Participating Agency’s on how to update their RRA going forward to continue to meet
the 5 year currency requirements.
3. Phase 3 Emergency Operations Plant (ERP) Update – The level of effort for preparation
of the ERP for each participating agency will vary, depending on the condition and
currency of each agency’s existing ERP. Since each of the agencies are at different
timelines of currency to their ERPs that address all-hazard response protocols, as well
as other related response documents, Phase 3 will be tailored to each agency’s needs.
The chart below identifies the expected level of effort as either Low, Medium or High. All
ERPs will be updated in a manner that is reflective of how MWDOC and participating
agencies do business, but also in a way that aligns with local and state partners existing
plans for coordination, emergency operations, and hazard mitigation.
For completion of Phase 3, one group ERP Kickoff Workshop will be held for all
participating agencies to provide partners with a refresher on the results of the RRA
and how it informs the ERP update; a brief introduction to ERP planning concepts
(tailored to the agency’s level of planning); a facilitated discussion on existing plan
strengths and areas for improvement; and a hands-on work session tailored to the
unique needs of the utility to advance progress on gaps identified.
At a minimum, all ERP update efforts will include development of an AWIA

Requirements’ chapter that explains how their RRA, ERP, and other relevant
documents meet statutory and regulatory requirements. Regardless of the level of plan
development required, all partners will receive the support and attention of experienced
emergency planners to update their ERP documents.
Page 79 of 213
Page 6
Phase 3 will complete with the Final Plan Presentation and Awareness Training on an
agency by agency basis. Depending on agency needs, this awareness level
presentation would be conducted via webinar but could also include local, onsite
support. The presentation will be aligned with the executive summary task that the
utility can use moving forward to continue socializing the ERP with staff.
WEROC Temporary Part-Time Employee
Staff is requesting the approval of a Part-Time Temporary Employee within the WEROC
Program to assist with the coordination efforts of this project. The Director of Emergency
Services has committed a majority of her staff time to this project to date for several months
and will need assistance to be able to support this program moving forward. The proposed
individual would be an individual with emergency management background and would
assist with project support, to include, but not limited to: the collection and tracking of the
large numbers of documents to be exchanged between participating agencies and our
consultant; remind agencies of due dates and documents needed; and to coordinate
information, meetings and site visits between the participating agencies and the consultant.
The associated costs of the position will be shared between participating agencies
throughout the project.
Contracting Principles with Participating Agencies
WEROC has begun the process of circulating cost information with participating agencies to
support them in their budgeting and approval process for these efforts. Participating
Agencies are aware that a portion of these costs are variable based on the final number of
participating agencies and final negotiation of the contract by WEROC Staff with the
consultant.
Staff is recommending that all agencies participate in Phase 1, as completion of the

Crosswalk is key to the completion of Phases 2 and 3 based on the GAPS identified. We
believe that the Phase 1 cost efforts are typically within the signing authority of our
agencies. We have asked our agencies to provide a letter of commitment indicating their
participation in Phase 1 efforts by July 16.
Because of the magnitude of costs for Phase 2 and 3, a funding agreement will likely
require participating agency governing body approval. In order to negotiate the overall
contract with our consultant, WEROC is asking for Agencies to indicate their expected
participation in Phases 2 and 3 by July 16, however this is with recognition that their
participation is pending their own governing board approval. If an agency realizes that due
to the costs involved, they will not be participating in Phases 2 & 3, WEROC has indicated
that we need to know as soon as possible. The proposed consultant is setting aside
significant staff time to complete the collective work assignments over the next 2.5 years of
the project timeline. If all agencies participate, the highest total contract fee involved is
approximately $4.4 million.
Page 80 of 213
Page 7
Below is an estimate of the expected costs for each Phase per agency. Please note each
phase includes the estimated costs of the temporary employee plus a contingency of 10%
for Phases 2 and 3. We have asked our agencies for a commitment to Phase 1
participation and costs, as well as preliminary commitment to the level of funding for Phases
2 & 3, by July 16. Staff will provide a verbal update to the Board on actual Phase 1
commitments and preliminary Phase 2 & 3 commitments received as of the Board meeting.
Below is the estimated summary of costs.
Phase 3 – ERP* Agency Total

Phase 1- Phase 2-
Crosswalk RRA* Low Medium High Low Medium High
$15,099 $83,425 $14,624 $32,909 $61,566 $113,148 $131,432 160,090
*These costs include a 10% contingency.
** All 3 Phases include a WEROC Temp for 16 hours a week for the 2.5 years of the project. This is a
skilled temp in emergency management to assist with project support.
Below is the expected timeline for Board Review and Contracts or Agreements with the
Consultant, as well as Participating Agencies.
MWDOC/WEROC & Consultant MWDOC/WEROC & Participating Agencies

WEROC Staff is doing reference checks and
is starting to negotiate the Contract.
July 2 – A&F Committee/Board Staff Report July 2 – Participating Agency Meeting –
Due Review consultant selection process,
(WEROC Staff will provide a template staff Commitment Letter for Phase 1, Discuss
report to Participating Agencies based on our Agency Phase 2 & 3 Needs, Identify
report.) Documents Needed from each Agency, and
Review Agency Phase 2 & 3 Commitment
Agreement concept
July 10 – Anticipated MWDOC A&F
Committee Approval
July 17 – Anticipated MWDOC Board July 16 – Participating Agency Letter of
Approval Commitment to Phase 1 Costs, along with
“Expected” Commitment to Phase 2 & 3,
pending Governing Body Approval is due.
July 22 – Anticipated Notice to Proceed on July 22 – October 30, 2019 – Phase 1 Efforts
Phase 1, tentative on Phases 2 & 3
July 22 – October 4, 2019 – Participating
Agency Governing Body Approval for
Agreement with MWDOC and Costs for
Phase 2 & 3
October 4-30, 2019 – Finalize contract and October 4, 2019 – Final Agreement with
Notice to Proceed on Phases 2 & 3 MWDOC and commitment to Phase 2 & 3
Due
Page 81 of 213
Page 8
Review and Evaluation of Proposals
Many of the proposals were teams made up of multiple consultants to expand each
proposal’s capacity to serve the number of Participating Agencies and to meet the diversity
of the project’s needs. Proposals were received from the following consultants and teams.
Note that Herndon Solutions Group (HSG) is recommended for the contract award, so a bit
more detail has been provided.
1. Herndon Solutions Group (HSG) as the Primary Consultant employs 150 personnel that
specialize in emergency response planning, environmental services and sustainability
management. To handle the capacity of assisting up to 30 agencies, they have
partnered with several subcontractors including:
 Athena, a firm specializing in emergency preparedness and response with hands on
expertise and background knowledge of Orange County water and wastewater
agencies, as well as the WEROC program. Athena will serve as the Deputy
Program Manager.
 Atlas, a firm specializing in planning, climate adaptation, hazard mitigation and
general safety plan elements.
 Applied Engineering Management Corporation, Inc. (AEM), a top risk assessment
leader, AEM developed the commonly used and approved PARRE software
(“Program to Assist Risk & Resilience Examination), the only compliant software
available today.
 Horsley Witten Group (HW), a leading edge engineering, planning and
environmental consultant firm. HW is currently providing services to EPA in support
of AWIA implementation, to develop both RRA and ERP tools and guidance to help
utilities in their compliance endeavors.
 Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E), a fully integrated environmental consultancy
with specialized practices in building resilient communities.
Herndon Solutions Group has worked with each of these sub-contractors on previous
projects and a number of these consultants have worked together on a regular basis.
The overall project team will be organized into 5 teams, all led by a senior staff
member, to provide capacity for working on a number of agencies concurrently.
2. Willdan Financial Consultants, one of four operating divisions within the Willdan Group,
Inc., is a large national firm. This division has particular expertise in emergency
response plans and training. They partnered with West Yost & Associates, who
specialize in water related consulting in California, Oregon and Arizona, and is updating
the AWWA Water Sector Cybersecurity Risk Management Guidance.
3. Arup North America, is a large national with multi-disciplinary engineers, planners,

designers and consultants. They partnered with Michael Baker International, Carollo
Engineers, and Triad Consulting and System Design Group, who specializes in security
management consulting and system design.
Page 82 of 213
Page 9
4. HDR, a national firm specializing in architecture, engineering and construction. They

partnered with Claris Strategy (a LA based firm that has successfully completed prior
work with MWDOC), Ankura Consulting (a nationally recognized cybersecurity risk
expert), and Launch! Consulting (who helped develop the web-based AWIA training for
AWWA.)
5. Hazen & Sawyer, a national water consulting group, partnered with Zivaro, who
specializes in physical and cybersecurity consulting.
6. ABS Group Consulting, is recognized for providing natural and man-made risk
management and engineering services. In addition to its government, commercial and
private sector clients, the company has a history of successful work in vulnerability and
risk assessment for multi-purpose public utilities.
7. Prestige Analytics, Inc. LLC, proposed only on the Phase 3 work for completion of up to
29 ERPs.
Overall, there was considerable strength and expertise in the various proposals, especially
considering the additional talent added by sub-consultant team members. Many of the
proposals had outstanding firms and assigned project individuals. The proposals were
evaluated based on:
 Qualifications, 25%
 Schedule, 20%
 Approach, 20%
 Past Record of similar work, 15%
 Costs, 15%
 Innovation, 5%
The costs put forth by the various consultants had quite a range. When they were
evaluated on a standardized basis, assuming all 29 agencies were included, the range in
costs for five of the seven proposals were between $4 million and $10 million. Of the two
other proposals, one only covered the Phase 3 portion of the work and another that seemed
too low and lacking detailed expertise, were less than $4 million.
The review group was comprised of representatives from IRWD, South Coast, YLWD,
Santa Ana and MWDOC. After full discussion with the group and evaluating all aspects of
all proposals, the unanimous recommendation was to award the contract to Herndon
Solutions Group. Their proposal had the highest value for the lowest cost of the five highest
ranked proposals.
The recommended award of contract with Herndon Solutions Group is in the amount of, and
not to exceed $4.4 million. As noted previously these costs are contingent upon final
Participating Agency commitments. Staff is recommending a 10% contingency for Phases 2
and 3, for potential changes in scope along the way. Lastly, the total estimated costs for
Phase 3 assumes the highest possible level of effort for all agencies. Although Staff does
not expect all Participating Agencies to need this level of effort, it was used in order to
Page 83 of 213
Page 10
estimate the highest possible contract amount. Total estimated contract costs per phase is
as follows:
 Phase 1 - $412,000
 Phase 2 - $2,289,000
 Phase 3 - $1,685,000
WEROC staff is working with MWDOC Legal to incorporate language in the MWDOC
standard consultant agreement to ensure clarity of pricing, number of participating agencies
in each phase, and recognition that final participation numbers and therefore final contract
amounts are contingent upon individual Participating Agency approvals. Staff will provide
updates to the Board on final Participating Agency commitments for Phase 2 and 3,
expected by the October MWDOC Planning and Operations Board Committee Meeting.
MWDOC/WEROC Cost for AWIA Compliance

It is a little unclear whether MWDOC as a regional wholesale water utility is required to meet
the AWIA requirements. WEROC Staff have spoken to several US EPA and AWWA
Emergency Management staff regarding whether MWDOC is required to meet the
compliance requirements and the responses have differed. Considering the ambiguity of the
requirement, and that AWIA is a national best practice for water utilities, WEROC staff
recommends that MWDOC take advantage of this contract and approve staff to be involved
as a Participating Agency. WEROC Staff recommend that MWDOC participate in Phase 1,
Phase 2, and Phase 3 at a Medium Level of Effort for the estimated cost of $131,000.
BOARD OPTIONS
Option #1
 Proceed with the award to HSG to provide necessary services for up to 28 agencies
to comply with the AWIA.
 Authorize the General Manager to enter into Letter Agreements or Contracts with up
to 28 of our participating agencies (including two of the three cities) for cost recovery
of the expenditures.
 Authorize the General Manager to hire a part-time temporary position within WEROC
to coordinate the consultant’s efforts with Participating Agencies. Position will be
charged back to participating agencies.
Fiscal Impact: Total estimated maximum costs of approximately $4.5 million

(including consultant contract with 10% contingency and temporary staffing
costs). This is a great value for the money and offers a large savings to our
agencies from facilitating a single contract.
Business Analysis: Great opportunity for WEROC/MWDOC to show both

leadership and value to our agencies towards best practices.
Page 84 of 213
Page 11
Option #2
 Do not proceed with the award, and therefore no need for agreements with
participating agencies or the temporary position.
Fiscal Impact: Likely higher costs for our agencies for compliance and a concern
that the 100,000+ population agencies would struggle to meet their deadlines if
they were to start their own RFP process at this time. The costs for non-
compliance can be assessed at $25,000 per day.
Business Analysis: Would be an opportunity passed up.
Option #3
 Authorize MWDOC’s commitment to the AWIA process at an estimated cost of
$131,000, with a 10% contingency, with combined funds from engineering, WEROC
and finance to be provided.
Fiscal Impact: Estimated cost for MWDOC would be split between WEROC,
MWDOC Engineering and MWDOC Finance Department, as the analysis and
products will have benefits for the WEROC program, as well as for MWDOC. This
is an unbudgeted expense and would be paid from reserves.
Business Analysis: This will assist Staff with other efforts to identify gaps in
emergency and business continuity planning, as well as cyber-security systems,
enhancing WEROC and MWDOC’s overall resilience.
Staff recommends Options #1 and #3.
Page 85 of 213
Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC)
AWIA Compliance Crosswalks, RRAs, and ERPs
Date: 17 June 2019
City of Huntington Beach LHMP Update

Prior to joining Atlas, Mr. Pfannenstiel updated the City of Huntington Beach’s 2012 and 2017 LHMP. These
updates included a review of city plans and policies, identification of facilities necessary to city operation,
prioritization of hazards, preparation of hazard profiles that could impact the city, preparation of a risk
assessment, and updated mitigation actions to reduce potential vulnerabilities in the future. The process
included facilitation of meetings with city department personnel and various stakeholders, as well as close
coordination with city staff to ensure that the appropriate focus and direction were used to complete the LHMP.
In addition, an online public opinion survey was distributed to more than 3,000 residents, stakeholders, and
interested parties via a press release, direct correspondence, and the city’s website. Final review of the plan by
Cal OES and FEMA Region IX resulted in minimal comments and revisions. During the 2017 update, Mr.
Pfannenstiel was also the assistant project manager for the city’s comprehensive general plan update and was
able to integrate these two plans in a meaningful way that further reinforces hazards policy and implementation
throughout the city.
Exhibit 2-12. Risk Assessments for American Water

Risk Assessments for American Water
Contract Beginning and Ending Dates: 20 April 2012 – Present
Original Cost/Price: $154,000 Actual Cost/Price: $154,000
Explanation of Variance (if applicable)
Original Schedule: Task order specific Actual Schedule: Task order specific
Explanation of Variance (if applicable)

This project is under a Master Services Agreement (MSA); therefore, the schedules vary by task order request;
however, AEM meets all schedule requirements on its task orders.
Project Description
AEM is under an MSA with American Water to provide consulting services through risk and resilience
assessments for their 150+ utilities as needed. Assessments have been completed to date for American Water’s
highest priority systems on the East Coast. AEM also developed American Water standards for completing these
assessments. These standards, which are utilized in all assessments, have ensured consistency between
individual utilities when analyzing the results of an assessment at a corporate level. The standards also allow the
assessments to be completed at a faster rate and lower cost than would otherwise be required.
3.0 ASSURANCE OF DESIGNATED PROJECT TEAM

Key personnel have signed commitment letters, which have been provided in Attachment C. We understand
that reassignment and/or substitution must be approved by MWDOC.
4.0 PROJECT APPROACH
Our proposed project approach takes into consideration the large volume of utilities requiring these
services, the complexity of the services required, and the deadline in which these services need to be
performed. The HSG Team is proposing to complete all phases of the project, including all 29 entities
identified in the RFP. Our organizational chart uses the principles of “span of control” to ensure adequate
resources and personnel are deployed to jurisdictions in need. Each of our five project managers will be
Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal.
23 Page 86 of 213
Date: 17 June 2019
assigned to a group of agencies (or area), based on the number of agencies awarded to the HSG Team,
geography, agency specific due dates, and information provided during the RFP process.
Each APM will remain with their assigned agencies throughout the entire project and be the single point of
contact for the participating agency contact (PAC). Additionally, the APM will work with the PAC to
develop a core planning team at the start of each phase that will remain the same throughout the duration of
the project. The planning team, in its entirety, will include the APM, PAC, agency core planning members,
dedicated PARRE technician, and assigned ERP planner. Other HSG Team professionals will be assigned,
as needed to support the core planning team, which will remain the same throughout all phases of the
project (Exhibit 4-1).
Exhibit 4-1. Core Planning Team
4.1 Phase I – Design and Complete Compliance Crosswalks

A compliance crosswalk can be an incredibly helpful tool to an organization to baseline its status with
current regulations, requirements, and industry standards, and also serve as a metric for improvement.
4.1.1 Task 1: Design of AWIA Compliance Crosswalk
For the purposes of compliance with AWIA, the following three core standards should serve as the
backbone of the compliance crosswalk, as they are the voluntary consensus standards that drive risk
assessments and ERPs within the industry: J100, G430, and G440.
The HSG Team will use a crosswalk that was previously developed to perform gap assessments for the City
of Westminster Public Works and Utilities (CO) and update it to ensure the elements of AWIA apply (i.e.,
currency within 5 years). The crosswalk will be a living document that is maintained and updated by
MWDOC and its participating agencies, including other requirements, such as SEMS, and evolve into a
robust tool for ongoing evaluation and process improvement.
In addition to the deliverables and milestones identified in Attachment C of the RFP, the HSG Team
proposes conducting a kickoff meeting with the MWDOC project manager, as well as an “all-hands”
meeting with the participating agencies, which will serve as the kickoff meetings for Phase I. The objective
of the meetings will be to introduce the project team, discuss the project schedule, and inform them of their
responsibilities (i.e., the initial data call, follow-on data calls, and how to provide the team information), as
well as allow the agencies to ask any questions they may have regarding the project. Finally, HSG will
create a secure SharePoint site for each participating agency to begin uploading documents immediately
24 Page 87 of 213
Date: 17 June 2019
following award (including a one-page fact sheet on how to access the website and upload documents).
HSG will also show the PAC how to use the SharePoint site at the “all-hands” meeting. A summary of key
events and deliverables, as well as corresponding task assumptions, are provided in Exhibit 4-2.
Exhibit 4-2. Phase I, Task 1 Key Events and Deliverables
Key Events/Deliverables
§ SharePoint website for each participating agency
§ SharePoint “Fact Sheet”
§ Initial data call
§ Draft compliance crosswalk template
§ Project kickoff with MWDOC project manager
§ Project “all-hands” meeting with participating agencies
§ Comments on draft compliance crosswalk template
§ Final compliance crosswalk template
Assumptions
§ Compliance crosswalk template developed in Microsoft Excel
§ Consolidated comments will be received from MWDOC on behalf of all agencies
§ MWDOC will adjudicate conflicting comments, if applicable
§ Comments will not require a significant re-work of the template
§ Final compliance crosswalk template will be submitted one-time only
§ Deliverables will be submitted electronically
4.1.2 Task 2: Complete AWIA Crosswalk for Each Participating Agency

Following the approved AWIA compliance crosswalk matrix, the HSG Team will complete the matrix for
each participating agency based on the documentation provided. The list of documents provided in the RFP
are an excellent starting point and should provide the HSG Team with the information needed to complete
the matrix. In short, anything related to hazard mitigation, risk management, and emergency planning will
be helpful, as HSG would rather have “too much” information than “too little.” HSG will coordinate with
the PAC for resolution of any additional comments. A summary of key events and deliverables, as well as
corresponding task assumptions, are provided in Exhibit 4-3.
In addition to individual crosswalks, once all assessments are complete, the HSG Team will develop a brief
memorandum summarizing shared gaps and strengths that could be addressed through development of
consistent content updates and best-in-class content potentially advanced across MWDOC and its
participating agencies.
Exhibit 4-3. Phase I, Task 2 Key Events and Deliverables
§ Draft compliance crosswalk per participating agency
§ Comments on draft compliance crosswalk per participating agency
§ Draft-Final compliance crosswalk per participating agency
§ Comments on Draft-Final compliance crosswalk per participating agency
§ Final compliance crosswalk per participating agency
25 Page 88 of 213
Date: 17 June 2019
§ Memorandum on gaps and strengths
Assumptions
§ Participating agencies provide all related emergency planning documents in electronic format
§ Consolidated comments will be received from each participating agency
§ Participating agencies will adjudicate conflicting comments, if applicable
§ Comments will not require a significant rework of the crosswalk
§ Draft deliverables will be submitted electronically
§ One, color hard-copy of final crosswalk, per participating agency
§ Two, electronic copies (Microsoft Word and PDF), per participating agency
4.2 Phase II – Conduct Risk and Resiliency Assessments

The HSG Team anticipates that Phase II will require the largest level of effort, as most risk management
efforts have generally been focused on natural hazard mitigation planning. While some agencies have
started to assess cyber and other risks, the RRA will support the assessment and determination of an “all-
hazards” approach to determine the risk and resilience of all drinking water physical, operational, and cyber
assets owned, utilized, or operated by each participating agency in accordance with industry standards. The
HSG Team will utilize the J100 to develop the RRA and address the gaps identified under Phase I. Our
detailed approach is provided below.
4.2.1 Task 1: Analysis Tool Selection
The HSG Team proposes the use of AEM’s PARRE tool (Exhibit 4-4) as it is the most cost efficient and
effective tool to perform a risk assessment in accordance with the J100 standard, generates results that
directly inform the agency, and provide the agency with SAFETY ActTM flow-down liability limitation
from directed attacks. PARRE has many features including:
• Tracks progress at reducing risk and increasing resiliency over time against a fixed baseline.
• Quickly updates as investments are made or assets are modified to show the change in risk and risk-
priorities.
• Accesses a
complete suite of
J100-required,
directed threats for
assessment team
evaluation,
automatically
calculating asset
risk for six natural
threats (hurricane,
tornado, seismic,
flood, ice storm,
Exhibit 4-4. PARRE Dashboard
26 Page 89 of 213
Date: 17 June 2019
and wild fire) based on US government recurrence databases.

• Substitutes alternate recognized approaches for determining natural threat magnitudes and return
periods, if desired.
• Calculates threat-asset pair risk probability values based on monetary consequences, vulnerability
probability, and threat likelihood probability
• Guides the assessment team through the step-by-step logic of an assessment, assuring that significant
information is not overlooked.
• Calculates both threat-asset pair level resilience and system-wide financial/operating resilience.
• Links to owner/operator preferred consequence models (e.g., blast analysis, contamination, and toxic
gas release).
• Determines vulnerability probability using path analysis, decision tree analysis, and/or fault tree
analysis.
• Determines threat likelihood using expert elicitation, conditional probability, and/or proxy tool.
• Accommodates proximity and interdependency evaluations from other lifeline sector risk
assessments.
• Stores the amassed data in a secure, owner-controlled environment so that it is readily available for
modification, updates, “what-if drills,” and/or future assessment team use.
The PARRE tool is also very user friendly and will be straight forward for the agency to use, maintain, and
update on its own. While the PARRE tool is subscription based, AEM hosts PARRE in a secure
environment and MWDOC, as well as each participating agency, owns their data. AEM offers bulk pricing
and would honor a rate of $399/year, per user, to maintain its subscription, which also includes technical
support. While the HSG Team understands that participating agencies are generally opposed to a
subscription-based tool, we have seen first-hand the laborious and inefficient effort to conduct a risk
assessment using Microsoft Excel. Further, Microsoft Excel is not sustainable, as versions change over the
years, formulas may no longer work, and there is no frontend (user interface) or backend (data storage)
other than in the software itself, which after all the hard work that is going into this effort, is incredibly
risky. Further, Microsoft Excel does not have the ability to generate reports based on the pre-populated data
without the creation of complicated macros or programming using Visual Basic, which is also not
sustainable. The use of Microsoft Excel would easily double the cost of the RRA.
The remaining option is EPA’s VSAT tool, which is web-based and also carries the SAFETY ActTM
designation; however, PARRE and VSAT are very different in how the J100 standard is applied:
• VSAT was not developed for use with large utilities. The intended audience for the tool is very small
utilities that would like to assess their risk, but do not have many assets or threats to consider (and
does well, in those instances). PARRE, however, was developed for use by consultants and medium
to large utilities, as well as the ability to handle significantly larger amounts of data, displayed in a
way that allows the utility or consultant to view hundreds of threat-asset pairs simultaneously. These
differences set PARRE above VSAT in terms of data handling and display.
27 Page 90 of 213
Date: 17 June 2019
• VSAT does not provide customer support. PARRE provides customer support, not only during the
assessment but after its completion. If MWDOC and its participating agencies plan to access the data
in the future and are met with any problems, AEM will be available to support through resolution.
• VSAT stores user data and analysis files in a local web browser; if one cleared their “cookies,” all
data would be lost if it was not previously exported. Data must be saved on a local device then later
uploaded if one wants to update the risk assessment at a later date. PARRE stores all data on a secure
server (with daily backups) and is available to any user at any agency at any time.
Building on the above, the HSG Team will provide MWDOC with a memo outlining available options for
risk assessment development including a description of the solution and expected pros and cons. However,
based on our depth of experience supporting these efforts, the HSG Team recommends the exclusive use of
the PARRE tool based on the reasons stated above. Should MWDOC desire another method, HSG would
need to revise our technical approach, schedule, and pricing. Upon award, the HSG Team can provide
additional information on the PARRE tool to MWDOC and its participating agencies. A summary of key
events and deliverables, as well as corresponding task assumptions, are provided in Exhibit 4-5.
Exhibit 4-5. Phase II, Task 1 Key Events and Deliverables
§ Risk Assessment Solutions Memo
§ Confirmation of analysis tool
Assumptions
§ PARRE will be selected as the tool to conduct the risk assessment
§ If a tool, other than PARRE, is selected, a revision to scope, schedule, and budget will be required
4.2.2 Task 2: Collection and Writing of the RRA

The RRA will take into consideration the findings under Phase I and leverage existing information, where
available, and address data gaps, as appropriate. While the participating agencies have worked diligently on
their risk management and emergency planning efforts, the HSG Team strongly feels that each participating
agency will need to go through the entire J100 process, as it is unlikely that efforts, to date, will address
each of the elements of the standard, unless an agency has previously conducted a J100 assessment. While
their current efforts will certainly support and assist in the completion of the risk assessment, the process is
the same. Therefore, it is unlikely to see significant “economics of scale” in the cost to perform it; however,
MWDOC and the participating agencies will see efficiency by using our approach. The HSG Team will
prepare an SOP on how each RRA will be performed to ensure consistency across the MWDOC and its
participating agencies. The workshops will occur in tandem, regardless of RRA due date, allowing the
project team to collaborate and ensure it is maximizing participating agencies’ efforts and maintaining
consistency with our SOP.
The RFP provides a list of referenced documents that should be considered and requests the consultant to
identify the primary materials and reference documents that will be utilized. During the RRA, the primary
material utilized will be the J100 standard, as the backend data is built into the PARRE tool. However, there
are some good reference documents that could help inform the J100 and could be used, as needed (Exhibit
4-6).
28 Page 91 of 213
Date: 17 June 2019
Exhibit 4-6. Phase II Key Materials and Reference Documents

Primary Material Reference Documents (inform the primary material)
§ ANSI/AWWA G440-17. Emergency Preparedness Practices. Denver,
CO. 2017 (to support physical security aspect of the assessment)
§ AWWA. Process Control System Security Guidance for the Water
AWWA J100-10 (R13). RAMCAP. Sector. 2017 (to support the cybersecurity component)
Denver, CO. 2013 § ANSI/AWWA G300, Source Water Protection
§ AWWA Water Sector Resource Typing Guidance, 2019 (replaces
AWWA Water & Wastewater Mutual Aid & Assistance Resource
Typing Manual. 2008)
The HSG Team has a proven approach to conduct J100 risk assessments. The APM will facilitate three
onsite work sessions with the participating agencies to assess risk and resilience of the public water system.
An overview of the J100 process is provided in Exhibit 4-7 and our approach is detailed below.
Throughout the process, we will ensure that during the assessments, we are considering the ERP response
concepts from AWIA, as indicated in the RFP.
Exhibit 4-7: J100 Process

4.2.2.1 Preparation and Data Configuration
The APM will schedule a Phase II kickoff meeting to learn more about the participating agency, introduce
the J100 standard, and provide an overview of the PARRE tool. The risk assessment is rooted in an
understanding of an agency’s assets; therefore, the HSG Team would appreciate if the agency could provide
29 Page 92 of 213
Date: 17 June 2019
an overview of its system. At this meeting, we will also discuss the initial data call, as well as follow-on
data calls throughout the RRA process and the importance of accurate, complete, and up-to-date
information. Concurrent with preparation and execution of the kickoff meeting, the HSG Team will work
with AEM to setup and configure the PARRE databases for each participating agency.
4.2.2.2 Workshop #1
For each of the three workshops under Task 2, the APM will lead with two support staff: one support staff
member will be the dedicated PARRE technician for the participating agency who will “real-time” update
the system throughout the course of the workshop, while the second staff member will be the dedicated
logistics coordinator/minute-taker who will be responsible for working with the PAC to ensure room
logistics are organized in advance, and also take notes on behalf of the APM and PARRE technician.
Further, the workshops will be scheduled, in-tandem with other participating agencies to not only minimize
travel costs but allow for the APMs to coordinate throughout the week and benefit from work at each
other’s participating agencies.
The asset and threat characterization steps of the assessment process will be conducted in the form of
Workshop #1, a two-day, facilitated planning workshop held at the participating agency’s facility.
Workshop #1 has the following objectives:
Asset Characterization. The APM will serve to facilitate with the participating agency to identify which
assets are critical to the sustained and robust operation of the system. This could include grouping of assets,
such as “reservoirs.” The critical assets will be prioritized to determine which assets will initially be
analyzed as being especially critical to operations sustainability. Although not initially assessed, lower-
priority assets are frequently brought into the asset pool as the team gains in-depth understanding of the
risks. The facilitator will assist the team to clearly define and characterize the assets to be included in the
analysis. This step is critical to the success of the project, as it serves as the foundation for risk assessment.
The HSG Team assumes that MWDOC and its participating agencies, at a minimum, have a list of all of
their assets, age, and replacement schedule.
Threat Characterization. The facilitator will help identity significant threats to the system. The threats to
be considered will include the J100-required natural as well as man-made threats that are reasonable for the
system. As the assessment matures, the facilitator will consider dependency and proximity threats that
should be included for full understanding of system exposure.
Identify and Prioritize Threat-Asset Pairs. The facilitator will identify and prioritize the threat-asset pairs
(the basic unit of a probability-based risk assessment) to be initially included in the assessment. Like the
selection of critical assets, threat-asset pairs that are not initially included may be picked-up later in the
assessment process.
Important note on threat-asset pairs. The total number of threat asset pairs is unknown until an
assessment occurs and one understands what threats are of importance to the utility and how the critical
assets might respond. The J100 process’ vetting routine gives priority to the “mission-critical
assets” which are taken forward for full assessment. This approach saves effort on lower-priority pairs
while still achieving a good outcome. To ensure consistency across the organizations, as well as ensure
we are able to meet all deadlines, we are assuming no more than 150 threat-asset pairs, which should
provide a reasonable assessment field for each participating agency to meet the AWIA provision; should
30 Page 93 of 213
Date: 17 June 2019
a participating agency identify more than 150 threat-asset pairs or choose to do more, those will need to
be assessed at a later date.
Identify Countermeasures. The facilitator will work with the participating agencies to identify and
characterize the countermeasures currently in place to protect the critical assets.
Introduce Vulnerability Probability Approaches. The APM will introduce the participating agency to
the various approaches that are available for determining the probability of existing countermeasures
failure. The agency will learn how to complete an expert elicitation evaluation, a path analysis, and a
decision tree analysis. Furthermore, the agency will be introduced to the factors that determine which type
of analysis is the most appropriate approach for each type of countermeasure.
Calculate Overall System Resilience. The facilitator will assist the team in determining its overall system
resilience described in the J100 standard as the Utility Resilience Indicator (URI).
4.2.2.3 Vulnerability Analysis Preparation
The APM will prepare a summary of Workshop #1 for the participating agency to review and comment.
The summary will include information developed during the workshop including the identified critical
assets, significant threats, high-priority threat-asset pairs, existing countermeasures, and baseline resilience.
The APM will also prepare a consequences strawman, providing an initial look at the worst reasonable
consequences to each critical asset should a successful threat materialize against it. Further, the APM will
prepare a vulnerability strawman, evaluating the robustness of the existing countermeasures to attenuate the
consequences of a successful threat attack. Finally, the APM will prepare a list of assignments for
participating agencies to fill-in gaps of missing information that permit data set completion.
4.2.2.4 Workshop #2
The consequence and vulnerability analysis steps of the assessment process will be conducted during
Workshop #2, a two-day, facilitated planning workshop to be held at the participating agency’s facility.
Workshop #2 has the following objectives:
Review and Edit Consequences and Vulnerability Strawmen. The participating agency will review the
consequences and the vulnerability strawmen and validate the direct costs to the utility system, as well as
the estimates of potential serious injuries and fatalities.
DECISION POINT. At this point, an agreed list of critical assets, identified threats, and threat-
asset pairs is required to continue the assessment. Further work on the assessment will not
continue until the participating agency confirms the initial data sets that are to be considered.
Identify Dependencies and Proximity Threats. The agency will identify dependencies that, if interrupted,
have the high potential of causing the system to be unable to meet its mission. In addition, threats to
proximate critical infrastructure that could adversely impact operations will be identified.
Introduction to Risk Likelihood. Identify and calculate the risk likelihoods for the critical asset-threat
pairs. The agency will be introduced to the J100 approaches for determining the threat probability for
directed threats including expert elicitation, conditional assessment, and the use of the proxy measure.
Threat likelihood probabilities for natural-occurring events will be automatically calculated in PARRE
31 Page 94 of 213
Date: 17 June 2019
based on published historical records of event return periods as maintained by a variety of government
agencies.
4.2.2.5 Draft Risk Assessment Baseline Preparation Report
Workshop #2 Summary. The APM will prepare a summary of Workshop #2 for the participating agency
to review and comment. The summary will include the set of anticipated consequence and vulnerability
probabilities, threat likelihood probabilities, and risks for each threat-asset pair.
Draft Risk Assessment Baseline Report. The APM will prepare and distribute a draft report of the risk
assessment baseline. The system’s threat-asset pairs and their associated consequences, vulnerabilities,
threat likelihoods, and risk values will be identified.
4.2.2.6 Workshop #3
The draft risk assessment baseline report will be reviewed by the team and appropriate stakeholders during
Workshop #3. While typically, this is performed via WebEx, due to the volume of participating agencies,
the HSG Team recommends this time is utilized to review the draft report and meet with senior
management. The draft report affords the participating agency the first look at the relative and prioritized
risks for each critical asset and of their systems overall. Based on the HSG Team’s review of this report,
data gaps can be identified, and adjustments made to fully reflect conditions “on the ground.”
4.2.2.7 Draft-Final & Final Risk Assessment Baseline Report
Draft-Final Report. Based on the decisions reached during Workshop #3, the APM will prepare and
distribute a draft-final baseline risk assessment report for review by the participating agency. Upon receipt
of comments from the participating agency on the draft-final report, the APM will incorporate this guidance
and will review the report for content and accuracy. The participating agency will have the opportunity to
adjust, as necessary, during this period.
Final Report. The team will resolve any outstanding risk-calculation issues and adopt the baseline. After
incorporating any input from the participating agency, a final risk assessment baseline report will be
prepared and distributed.
PARRE Baseline Fixed. The baseline will be locked at this point to form the basis against which all
proposed system changes/countermeasures will be measured.
4.2.2.8 J100, Step 7

In short, Step 7 of the J100 bridges from the statutory RRA into the ERP. It is a step to help the utility make
the business case for those “good ideas” for reducing risk that have the greatest return on investment. While
some entities feel Step 7 is optional, the HSG Team strongly believes Step 7 informs the ERP update,
which will benefit Phase III.
§ Phase II kickoff meeting
§ Workshop #1 (two days)
§ Workshop #2 (two days)
32 Page 95 of 213
Date: 17 June 2019
§ Workshop #3
§ Draft RRA
§ Comments on RRA
§ Meeting with participating agency senior management
§ Draft-Final RRA
§ Comments on Draft-Final RRA
§ Final RRA
Assumptions
§ Anticipates that the level of detail of the analysis could require the assessment of up to 150 threat-asset pairs.
§ MWDOC and its participating agencies, at a minimum, have a list of all of their assets, age, and replacement
schedule
§ Workshop #3 will be concurrent with Phase III kickoff meeting
§ Key personnel will attend workshops
§ Participating agency will provide venue for workshops
§ Participating agency will provide consolidated comments on the draft, draft-final, and final report and adjudicate
any conflicting comments, if applicable
§ Draft deliverables will be electronic only
§ One, color hard-copy (bound) for final RRA, per participating agency
4.2.3 Task 3: Participating Agency Training on Assessment Processes and Tools

Per the RFP, the HSG Team will develop a group training, including how the participating agency can
utilize the processes and tools leveraged during the project for ongoing and future updates.

§ Participating agency training
§ Training handouts
Assumptions
§ Training will be no more than one-business day
§ Participating agency will host training
§ One training will be provided
§ Deliverables will be electronic
4.3 Phase III Update/Write ERP

Since the majority of the agencies have current ERPs that address all-hazard response protocols, as well as
other related response documents, it is anticipated that Phase III will be much less of an effort than Phase II.
All ERPs will be updated in a manner that is reflective of how MWDOC and participating agencies do
business, but also in a way that aligns with local and state partners existing plans for coordination,
emergency operations, and hazard mitigation. As stated in section 4.2, several of the reference documents
provided in the RFP should be considered throughout this project. While the J100 is the primary material
33 Page 96 of 213
Date: 17 June 2019
for Phase II, the primary materials for Phase III are the G430 and G440 standards. A sample of the
reference documents that support those primary materials, as requested in the RFP, is provided in Exhibit
4-10, as well as a list of other relevant references that could be leveraged depending on the needs of each
ERP (e.g., the RFP states ERPs requiring a “high” level of effort may need to be updated extensively, which
may include local or state specific guidance).
Exhibit 4-10. Phase III Key Materials and Reference Documents
Primary Materials Reference Documents
§ AWWA J100-10 (R13). RAMCAP. Denver, CO. 2013
§ AWWA. Process Control System Security Guidance for the Water
AWWA G430-14. Security Practices for Sector. 2017
Operation and Management. Denver,
§ AWWA. Utilities Helping Utilities: An Action Plan for Mutual Aid
CO.2014
and Assistance Networks for Water and Wastewater Utilities. 2006
§ FEMA Local Mitigation Planning Handbook
§ AWWA M19. Emergency Planning for Water and Wastewater
Utilities, Fifth Edition. Denver, CO. Updated 2018
§ AWWA Water & Wastewater Mutual Aid & Assistance Resource
ANSI/AWWA G440-17. Emergency Typing Manual. 2008
Preparedness Practices. Denver, CO. § AWWA. Utilities Helping Utilities: An Action Plan for Mutual Aid
2017 and Assistance Networks for Water and Wastewater Utilities. 2006
§ FEMA CPG 101
§ FEMA Local Mitigation Planning Handbook
4.3.1 Task 1: Update/Write ERP

The HSG Team has preliminary classified each agency’s emergency response planning effort as “low,”
“medium,” or “high,” per the RFP, based on the information provided during the RFP process (Exhibit
4-11), as well as the assumptions in Exhibit 4-12. However, following completion of Phase I, one that may
have been identified as “medium” could be reclassified as “low,” just as one that is identified as “medium”
could be reclassified as “high.”
Exhibit 4-11. Preliminary Classifications
Agency Preliminary Classification
Orange County Water District High
Municipal Water District of Orange County Medium
Irvine Ranch Water District High
Santa Ana, City of Medium
Huntington Beach, City of High
Garden Grove, City of High
Moulton Niguel Water District High
Santa Margarita Water District High
Fullerton, City of Medium
Orange, City of Medium
34 Page 97 of 213
Date: 17 June 2019
Agency Preliminary Classification

Mesa Water District Medium
Westminster, City of Low
Buena Park, City of Medium
Yorba Linda Water District Medium
East Orange County Water District (Wholesale & Retail
High
Zone)
Tustin, City of Medium
Newport Beach, City of Medium
La Habra, City of High
Fountain Valley, City of Medium
San Clemente, City of High
El Toro Water District Medium
Brea, City of Medium
San Juan Capistrano, City of Medium
South Coast Water District Medium
Seal Beach, City of Low
Laguna Beach County Water District Medium
La Palma, City of Medium
Trabuco Canyon Water District Low
Serrano Water District Low
Exhibit 4-12. ERP Levels of Effort and Assumptions

ERP Level of Effort Assumptions
Low § Participating agency has comprehensive and current ERP supported by appropriate
procedures
§ Content development will be limited to a ‘AWIA Requirements’ chapter and global
updates identified through the Crosswalk process
§ Any workshops conducted via webinar
Medium § Participating agency has comprehensive and current ERP but may require some
targeted content development support in terms of SOP/annex development
§ Content development includes development of an ‘AWIA Requirements chapter,
global updates identified through crosswalk process, and development of one
risk/function specific document
§ Includes one in-person workshop and one webinar-based workshop with the HSG
Team
High § Participating agency’s ERP is not up to date
§ Content development includes development of an ‘AWIA Requirements chapter,
global updates identified through crosswalk process, and support bringing the plan
into alignment with both AWIA requirements and ERP best practices
§ Includes two in-person workshops with the HSG Team
35 Page 98 of 213
Date: 17 June 2019
The HSG Team’s approach to ERP development is designed to reflect the reality that the level of
completeness and compliance is going to vary from utility to utility, but assumes that all participating
agencies have an existing ERP, or similar, that can be used as a foundational document for the plan update.
At a minimum, all planning efforts will include the following key elements:
ERP Kickoff Workshop. This webinar-based workshop will provide partners with a refresher on the
results of the RRA and how it informs the ERP update; a brief introduction to ERP planning concepts
(tailored to the agency’s level of planning); a facilitated discussion on existing plan strengths and areas for
improvement; and a hands-on work session tailored to the unique needs of the utility to advance progress on
gaps identified in Task 1.
Draft /Draft-Final Plan Development. At a minimum, all ERP update efforts will include development of
an ‘AWIA Requirements’ chapter that explains how their RRA, ERP, and other relevant documents meet
statutory and regulatory requirements. Regardless of the level of plan development required, all partners
will receive the support and attention of experienced emergency planners to update their ERP documents.
Our planning approach for all plans is centered around the following principles:
• Functional. Build a plan that is compliant, user-friendly, and action-oriented
• Streamlined. Gather relevant and appropriate data and facilitate integration and alignment of plans.
• Risk-Driven. Build on the RRA (balance between all hazard and hazard-specific planning)
• Coordinated. Support operational coordination between utility and key partners (e.g., city
emergency management organization and/or Certified Unified Protection Agency [CUPA]
coordination)
Final Plan Presentation and Awareness Training. Depending on agency needs, this awareness level
presentation would be conducted via webinar but also include local, onsite support. The HSG Team will
provide partners with an overview of plan content. The presentation will be aligned with the executive
summary task (section 4.3.2) that the utility can use moving forward to continue socializing the ERP with
its staff.
Exhibit 4-13. Phase III, Task 1 Key Events and Deliverables
§ Phase III kickoff meeting
§ ERP workshops
§ Draft ‘AWIA Requirements’ chapter
§ Final ‘AWIA Requirements’ chapter
§ Draft ERP
§ Draft-Final ERP (for medium and high)
§ Final ERP
§ Plan awareness training
Assumptions
§ Phase III kickoff meeting will be concurrent with Workshop #3, under Phase II
§ Participating Agency will host workshop
§ Draft-Final ERP deliverable will only be required for “medium” and “high” level of efforts
§ Consolidated comments will be received from each participating agency on the draft, draft-final (if applicable),
and final ERP
36 Page 99 of 213
Date: 17 June 2019
§ Participating agencies will adjudicate conflicting comments, if applicable

§ Comments on the Draft and/or Draft-Final will not require a significant rework of the ERP
§ Draft deliverables will be electronic only
§ One, color hard-copy (bound) of final ERP, per participating agency
4.3.2 Task 2: Participating Agency Executive Summary

The HSG Team will prepare an executive summary including a summary of the work performed and
current status as a tool to communicate with the CUPA in accordance with AWIA. The HSG Team will
prepare a template to be adapted to each agency, as requested.
Exhibit 4-14. Task 2 Key Events and Deliverables
§ Draft executive summary template
§ Comments on executive summary template
§ Final executive summary template
§ Completed executive summary, per participating agency
Assumptions
§ Completed executive summary to be submitted one-time only
§ Deliverables will be submitted electronically
5.0 PROJECT TIMELINE

Task Start End
Notice to Proceed 07/22/19 07/22/19
Receipt of Participating Agency Documents 07/22/19 07/22/19
Phase I: Design and Complete Compliance Crosswalks 07/22/19 10/28/19
Task 1: Design of AWIA Compliance Crosswalk 07/22/19 09/02/19
Project Kick Off Meeting with MWDOC Project Manager 07/22/19 07/22/19
Prepare Draft AWIA Compliance Crosswalk Template 07/22/19 08/08/19
Submit Draft AWIA Compliance Crosswalk Template 08/08/19 08/08/19
Review Period of Draft AWIA Compliance Crosswalk Template 08/09/19 08/15/19
Receive Consolidated Comments on Draft AWIA Compliance Crosswalk 08/15/19 08/15/19
Template
Incorporate Comments into Final AWIA Compliance Crosswalk Template 08/16/19 08/27/19
Submit Final AWIA Compliance Crosswalk Template 08/27/19 08/27/19
Phase I Kickoff and All Hands Meeting with Participating Agencies 08/27/19 08/27/19
MWDOC Project Manager Approves Format 08/28/19 09/02/19
Task 2: Complete AWIA Crosswalk for each Participating Agency 09/03/19 10/28/19
Populate Draft Compliance Crosswalk for each Participating Agency 09/03/19 09/20/19
37 Page 100 of 213
Date: 17 June 2019
Task Start End

Submit Populated Draft Compliance Crosswalk for each Participating 09/20/19 09/20/19
Agency
Review Period for Draft Compliance Crosswalk for each Participating 09/23/19 10/04/19
Agency
Receive Consolidated Comments on Draft Compliance Crosswalk for each 10/07/19 10/18/19
Participating Agency
Incorporate Comments Draft Compliance Crosswalk for each Participating 10/21/19 10/25/19
Agency
Submit Final Compliance Crosswalk for each Participating Agency 10/28/19 10/28/19
Submit Memorandum on Gaps and Strengths 10/28/19 10/28/19
Phase II: Conduct Risk and Resilience Assessments (RRA) 10/29/19 06/21/21
Task 1: Analysis Tool Selection 10/29/19 11/11/19
Task 2: Collection and Writing of the RRA 10/29/19 06/21/21
Group 1 Agencies 10/29/19 03/30/20
RRA Workshop #1 11/12/19 11/13/19
RRA Workshop #2 12/12/19 12/17/19
Draft RRA 10/29/19 01/21/20
Comments from Participating Agencies 01/22/20 02/11/20
Final-Draft RRA 02/12/20 02/25/20
RRA Workshop #3 02/26/20 02/27/20
Meetings/Coordination with Participating Agencies 02/26/20 03/17/20
Final RRA 02/26/20 03/17/20
RRA Certification Letter to EPA 03/18/20 03/30/20
Group 2 Agencies 03/18/20 11/16/20
RRA Workshop #1 03/18/20 03/19/20
RRA Workshop #2 04/17/20 04/22/20
Draft RRA 03/31/20 08/17/20
Final-Draft RRA 09/15/20 10/05/20
RRA Workshop #3 10/06/20 10/07/20
Final RRA 10/06/20 11/02/20
Group 3 Agencies 11/03/20 06/21/21
RRA Workshop #1 11/03/20 11/04/20
RRA Workshop #2 12/03/20 12/08/20
Draft RRA 11/03/20 03/22/21
38 Page 101 of 213
Date: 17 June 2019
Task Start End

Revised Draft RRA 04/20/21 05/10/21
RRA Workshop #3 05/11/21 05/12/21
Final RRA 05/11/21 06/07/21
Task 3: Participating Agency Training on Assessment Processes and Tools 03/31/20 04/13/20
Phase III: Write/Update Emergency Response Plans 02/26/20 12/14/21
Task 1: Update/Write ERP 02/26/20 12/14/21
Group 1 Agencies 02/26/20 09/30/20
ERP Kickoff Workshop (All Groups) 02/26/20 02/26/20
Draft ERP 02/26/20 04/20/20
Comments on Draft ERP 04/21/20 05/19/20
Revised Draft ERP 05/20/20 06/19/20
Comments on Revised Draft ERP 06/22/20 07/21/20
Final ERP Preparation 07/22/20 08/20/20
Final ERP Presentation and Awareness Training 08/20/20 08/20/20
ERP Certification Letter to EPA from Agencies 08/21/20 09/30/20
Group 2 Agencies 10/06/20 05/11/21
Draft ERP 10/06/20 11/27/20
Final ERP 03/02/21 03/31/21
Group 3 Agencies 05/11/21 12/14/21
Draft ERP 05/11/21 07/02/21
Final ERP 10/05/21 11/03/21
Task 2: Participating Agency Executive Summary 08/20/20 11/29/21
Group 1 Agencies 08/20/20 10/14/20
Draft Executive Summary 08/20/20 09/16/20
39 Page 102 of 213
Date: 17 June 2019
Task Start End

Participating Agency Comments 09/17/20 10/07/20
Final Executive Summary 10/08/20 10/14/20
Group 2 Agencies 03/02/21 04/26/21
Group 3 Agencies 10/05/21 11/29/21
6.0 FEE SCHEDULE

Per the RFP, Attachment E of the RFP is being provided as a separate attachment to the email transmittal of
this proposal and will be included as Volume 2.
7.0 CONTRACT
HSG is not requesting ay changes to MWDOC’s professional services agreement.
40 Page 103 of 213
Item No. 8

July 17, 2019

SUBJECT: MESA WATER DISTRICT’S REQUEST FOR CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS

TECHNICAL CONSULTING AND ADVISORY ASSISTANCE FOR THE
BURIED UTILITIES COALITION (BUC) TO RESPOND TO POTENTIAL
NEW SCAQMD REGULATIONS
It is recommended that the Board of Directors: Review, discuss, and consider a

contribution to Mesa Water towards funding of efforts related to the Buried Utilities Coalition
(BUC) for advocacy pertaining to the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s
(SCAQMD) Proposed Amended Rule (PAR) 1403 regarding asbestos.
Committee recommended the Board authorize a contribution of $20,000 to Mesa Water

towards funding efforts related to the BUC for advocacy pertaining to the South Coast Air
Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Proposed Amended Rule (PAR) 1403 regarding
asbestos.
SUMMARY
MWDOC and its agencies became aware of the SCAQMD intent to adopt NEW regulations
when asbestos is present for the repair of pipes or it is included in asphalt materials in
roadways when they need to excavated. The “water industry” found out late about the
potential regulations that were deemed as very intrusive and overreaching regarding the
emergency repair of Asbestos Cement Pipe (ACP) and other construction related to
roadway work. Mesa began organizing a response effort on behalf of all water utilities in
seeking input and suggestions. MWDOC began participating in the process, but since the
Budgeted (Y/N): N Budgeted amount: 0 Core __ Choice __

Action item amount: $20,000+- Line item:
Page 104 of 213

Page 2
organization had already been established by Mesa and MWDOC does not do any work
with ACP or in roadways, MWDOC concurred with Mesa to continue to spearhead the
effort. In other efforts where it benefits all agencies, MWDOC often coordinates and can
even expend funds for such when required to respond. This occurred several years ago
when the County Flood Control was intent on changing their encroachment permits. To
further help in the efforts, MESA brought on technical expertise and consulting assistance to
help organize the efforts, to attend and participate in SCAQMD meetings and to conduct
conference calls or host events inviting all agencies.
MESA has been accumulating costs and has expended $39,000 to date in outside funds
(above and beyond staff time) and although future estimates are hard to make, expects to
expend an additional $19,500 for a grand total of $68,500. The amount MESA has
expended has benefited all water agencies in Orange County; one way of spreading the
costs more proportionately among all water agencies is to seek funding assistance through
MWDOC. MWDOC derives revenue from all water agencies in the County with the
exception of the Three Cities. MESA’s request for only a $20,000 contribution seems very
fair in this instance. MWDOC may want to consider funding a portion of the future costs, as
well.
BOARD OPTIONS
Option #1
 Authorize a $20,000 contribution to Mesa Water toward the BUC efforts.
Fiscal Impact: $20,000 can be accommodated from our engineering budget.

Business Analysis: Provides a leadership role for MWDOC in representing our
agencies. The amount requested seems very reasonable.
Option #2
 Authorize a different contribution to Mesa Water toward the BUC efforts
Fiscal Impact: MWDOC could make a higher contribution to help spread the entire
$68,500 among all water agencies in Orange County. This would be a policy
discussion among our Board. It could range anywhere from $20,000 to $68,500.
Business Analysis: Provides a greater leadership role for MWDOC in representing our
agencies. Providing a greater amount of funding through MWDOC would more
proportionally spread the costs among the water industry.
Option #3
 Do not authorize any contribution to Mesa Water toward the BUC efforts
Fiscal Impact: $0
Business Analysis: MWDOC would be avoiding fulfillment of its leadership role in
representing our agencies.
Option #1
Page 105 of 213

Page 106 of 213
Item No. 9
DISCUSSION ITEM
July 10, 2019
TO: Administration & Finance Committee

FROM: Robert Hunter, General Manager
SUBJECT: POLICY DISCUSSION REGARDING CONDUCTING INVOCATIONS AT

BOARD MEETINGS
Staff recommends the Administration & Finance Committee: Discuss and decide whether
to conduct Invocations at Board meetings, and whether to refer this item to the Board for
action.
Committee recommended the full Board discuss this item.
DETAILED REPORT
The Executive Committee discussed the recent invocation prayer conducted at the June 19,
2019 Board meeting, noting that invocations had not been part of any MWDOC meetings in
the past, and the District lacked any formal policy on the issue.
The General Manager was directed to confer with legal counsel and provide legal guidelines
relative holding regular invocations (for review by the Administration & Finance Committee).
Legal Counsel Byrne submitted the attached Draft Guidelines for the Board to follow if they
elect to include invocations on the Board agenda. President Barbre asked that the 2013
U.S. Supreme Court decision be included for the Committee’s information.
Attachments: (1) Legal Counsel’s Draft Guidelines

(2) 2013 U.S. Supreme Court Decision
Budgeted (Y/N): N Budgeted amount: N/A Core __ Choice __

Action item amount: N/A Line item:
Page 107 of 213

GUIDELINES FOR INVOCATIONS
The Board of Directors of the Municipal Water District of Orange County (“District”) may
hold an invocation during meetings of the Board consistent with these Guidelines.
 The purpose of an invocation is to solemnize the Board’s legislative proceedings. The

invocation may be delivered after the pledge of allegiance and before the Board conducts
any official District business.
 No members of the Board, District employees, or members of the public will be required
to participate in the invocation.
 The invocation may not be used to proselytize, advance any one faith or belief, or to
disparage any other faith, belief, or non-belief.
 Invocations shall be limited to a reasonable and set amount of time that shall apply equally
to all.
 Any Board member who delivers an invocation shall do so from the podium and not the
dais.
 The opportunity to deliver an invocation will be offered on a rotating, voluntary basis to

members of the Board. District employees or members of the public may not provide the
invocation. The District Secretary will maintain a list stating the rotation of Board
members who will have the opportunity to deliver the invocation. If a Board member
declines, the next Board member on the list may offer the invocation.
 Except for the individual Board member delivering an invocation, no District officials,
officers or employees will engage in any prior inquiry, review of, or involvement in, the
content of any invocation to be offered.
OR
 The opportunity to offer an invocation will be offered on a rotating, voluntary basis to

leaders of diverse, established churches, congregations, or other religious assemblies in the
jurisdiction of the District, and to chaplains of fire departments, law enforcement agencies,
and military facilities located in the District. Board members may also participate. The
District Secretary will maintain a list of rotating invocation speakers. Invocation speakers
may join the list on a first come, first served basis. However, no invocation speaker will
be scheduled to deliver the invocation at more than three (3) Board meetings in any
calendar year if others are waiting on the list and have not had an opportunity to deliver an
invocation.
 No District officials, officers or employees will engage in any prior inquiry, review of, or
involvement in, the content of any invocation to be offered.
02335.00105\32142237.1
Page 108 of 213
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 1
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
TOWN OF GREECE, NEW YORK v. GALLOWAY ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 12–696. Argued November 6, 2013—Decided May 5, 2014

Since 1999, the monthly town board meetings in Greece, New York,
have opened with a roll call, a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance,
and a prayer given by clergy selected from the congregations listed in
a local directory. While the prayer program is open to all creeds,
nearly all of the local congregations are Christian; thus, nearly all of
the participating prayer givers have been too. Respondents, citizens
who attend meetings to speak on local issues, filed suit, alleging that
the town violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by
preferring Christians over other prayer givers and by sponsoring sec-
tarian prayers. They sought to limit the town to “inclusive and ecu-
menical” prayers that referred only to a “generic God.” The District
Court upheld the prayer practice on summary judgment, finding no
impermissible preference for Christianity; concluding that the Chris-
tian identity of most of the prayer givers reflected the predominantly
Christian character of the town’s congregations, not an official policy
or practice of discriminating against minority faiths; finding that the
First Amendment did not require Greece to invite clergy from con-
gregations beyond its borders to achieve religious diversity; and re-
jecting the theory that legislative prayer must be nonsectarian. The
Second Circuit reversed, holding that some aspects of the prayer pro-
gram, viewed in their totality by a reasonable observer, conveyed the
message that Greece was endorsing Christianity.
Held: The judgment is reversed.
681 F. 3d 20, reversed.
JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to
Part II–B, concluding that the town’s prayer practice does not violate
the Establishment Clause. Pp. 6–18.
Page 109 of 213

2 TOWN OF GREECE v. GALLOWAY
Syllabus
(a) Legislative prayer, while religious in nature, has long been un-
derstood as compatible with the Establishment Clause. Marsh v.
Chambers, 463 U. S. 783, 792. In Marsh, the Court concluded that it
was not necessary to define the Establishment Clause’s precise
boundary in order to uphold Nebraska’s practice of employing a legis-
lative chaplain because history supported the conclusion that the
specific practice was permitted. The First Congress voted to appoint
and pay official chaplains shortly after approving language for the
First Amendment, and both Houses have maintained the office virtu-
ally uninterrupted since then. See id., at 787–789, and n. 10. A ma-
jority of the States have also had a consistent practice of legislative
prayer. Id., at 788–790, and n. 11. There is historical precedent for
the practice of opening local legislative meetings with prayer as well.
Marsh teaches that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted
“by reference to historical practices and understandings.” County of
Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh
Chapter, 492 U. S. 573, 670 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.). Thus, any test
must acknowledge a practice that was accepted by the Framers and
has withstood the critical scrutiny of time and political change. The
Court’s inquiry, then, must be to determine whether the prayer prac-
tice in the town of Greece fits within the tradition long followed in
Congress and the state legislatures. Pp. 6–9.
(b) Respondents’ insistence on nonsectarian prayer is not con-
sistent with this tradition. The prayers in Marsh were consistent
with the First Amendment not because they espoused only a generic
theism but because the Nation’s history and tradition have shown
that prayer in this limited context could “coexis[t] with the principles
of disestablishment and religious freedom.” 463 U. S., at 786. Dic-
tum in County of Allegheny suggesting that Marsh permitted only
prayer with no overtly Christian references is irreconcilable with the
facts, holding, and reasoning of Marsh, which instructed that the
“content of the prayer is not of concern to judges,” provided “there is
no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to prose-
lytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.”
463 U. S., at 794–795. To hold that invocations must be nonsectarian
would force the legislatures sponsoring prayers and the courts decid-
ing these cases to act as supervisors and censors of religious speech,
thus involving government in religious matters to a far greater de-
gree than is the case under the town’s current practice of neither ed-
iting nor approving prayers in advance nor criticizing their content
after the fact. Respondents’ contrary arguments are unpersuasive.
It is doubtful that consensus could be reached as to what qualifies as
a generic or nonsectarian prayer. It would also be unwise to conclude
that only those religious words acceptable to the majority are permis-
Page 110 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 3
Syllabus
sible, for the First Amendment is not a majority rule and government
may not seek to define permissible categories of religious speech. In
rejecting the suggestion that legislative prayer must be nonsectarian,
the Court does not imply that no constraints remain on its content.
The relevant constraint derives from the prayer’s place at the open-
ing of legislative sessions, where it is meant to lend gravity to the oc-
casion and reflect values long part of the Nation’s heritage. From the
Nation’s earliest days, invocations have been addressed to assemblies
comprising many different creeds, striving for the idea that people of
many faiths may be united in a community of tolerance and devotion,
even if they disagree as to religious doctrine. The prayers delivered
in Greece do not fall outside this tradition. They may have invoked,
e.g., the name of Jesus, but they also invoked universal themes, e.g.,
by calling for a “spirit of cooperation.” Absent a pattern of prayers
that over time denigrate, proselytize, or betray an impermissible gov-
ernment purpose, a challenge based solely on the content of a par-
ticular prayer will not likely establish a constitutional violation. See
463 U. S., at 794–795. Finally, so long as the town maintains a policy
of nondiscrimination, the Constitution does not require it to search
beyond its borders for non-Christian prayer givers in an effort to
achieve religious balancing. Pp. 9–18.
JUSTICE KENNEDY, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE ALITO,
concluded in Part II–B that a fact-sensitive inquiry that considers
both the setting in which the prayer arises and the audience to whom
it is directed shows that the town is not coercing its citizens to engage
in a religious observance. The prayer opportunity is evaluated
against the backdrop of a historical practice showing that prayer has
become part of the Nation’s heritage and tradition. It is presumed
that the reasonable observer is acquainted with this tradition and
understands that its purposes are to lend gravity to public proceed-
ings and to acknowledge the place religion holds in the lives of many
private citizens. Furthermore, the principal audience for these invo-
cations is not the public, but the lawmakers themselves. And those
lawmakers did not direct the public to participate, single out dissi-
dents for opprobrium, or indicate that their decisions might be influ-
enced by a person’s acquiescence in the prayer opportunity. Re-
spondents claim that the prayers gave them offense and made them
feel excluded and disrespected, but offense does not equate to coer-
cion. In contrast to Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, where the Court
found coercive a religious invocation at a high school graduation, id.,
at 592–594, the record here does not suggest that citizens are dis-
suaded from leaving the meeting room during the prayer, arriving
late, or making a later protest. That the prayer in Greece is deliv-
ered during the opening ceremonial portion of the town’s meeting, not
Page 111 of 213

Syllabus
the policymaking portion, also suggests that its purpose and effect
are to acknowledge religious leaders and their institutions, not to ex-
clude or coerce nonbelievers. Pp. 18–23.
JUSTICE THOMAS, joined by JUSTICE SCALIA as to Part II, agreed
that the town’s prayer practice does not violate the Establishment
Clause, but concluded that, even if the Establishment Clause were
properly incorporated against the States through the Fourteenth
Amendment, the Clause is not violated by the kind of subtle pres-
sures respondents allegedly suffered, which do not amount to actual
legal coercion. The municipal prayers in this case bear no resem-
blance to the coercive state establishments that existed at the found-
ing, which exercised government power in order to exact financial
support of the church, compel religious observance, or control reli-
gious doctrine. Pp. 1–8.
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part II–
B. ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined the opinion in full, and SCALIA
and THOMAS, JJ., joined except as to Part II–B. ALITO, J., filed a con-
curring opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opin-
ion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which SCALIA,
J., joined as to Part II. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion. KAGAN,
J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SO-
TOMAYOR, JJ., joined.
Page 112 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 1
Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

_________________
No. 12–696
_________________
TOWN OF GREECE, NEW YORK, PETITIONER v.

SUSAN GALLOWAY ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
[May 5, 2014]
JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court,

except as to Part II–B.*
The Court must decide whether the town of Greece, New
York, imposes an impermissible establishment of religion
by opening its monthly board meetings with a prayer. It
must be concluded, consistent with the Court’s opinion in
Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U. S. 783 (1983), that no violation
of the Constitution has been shown.
I
Greece, a town with a population of 94,000, is in upstate
New York. For some years, it began its monthly town
board meetings with a moment of silence. In 1999, the
newly elected town supervisor, John Auberger, decided to
replicate the prayer practice he had found meaningful
while serving in the county legislature. Following the roll
call and recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, Auberger
would invite a local clergyman to the front of the room to
deliver an invocation. After the prayer, Auberger would
——————
* THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE ALITO join this opinion in full.
JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE THOMAS join this opinion except as to Part
II–B.
Page 113 of 213

thank the minister for serving as the board’s “chaplain for

the month” and present him with a commemorative
plaque. The prayer was intended to place town board
members in a solemn and deliberative frame of mind,
invoke divine guidance in town affairs, and follow a tradi
tion practiced by Congress and dozens of state legisla
tures. App. 22a–25a.
The town followed an informal method for selecting
prayer givers, all of whom were unpaid volunteers. A
town employee would call the congregations listed in a
local directory until she found a minister available for that
month’s meeting. The town eventually compiled a list of
willing “board chaplains” who had accepted invitations
and agreed to return in the future. The town at no point
excluded or denied an opportunity to a would-be prayer
giver. Its leaders maintained that a minister or layperson
of any persuasion, including an atheist, could give the
invocation. But nearly all of the congregations in town
were Christian; and from 1999 to 2007, all of the partici
pating ministers were too.
Greece neither reviewed the prayers in advance of the
meetings nor provided guidance as to their tone or con
tent, in the belief that exercising any degree of control
over the prayers would infringe both the free exercise and
speech rights of the ministers. Id., at 22a. The town
instead left the guest clergy free to compose their own
devotions. The resulting prayers often sounded both civic
and religious themes. Typical were invocations that asked
the divinity to abide at the meeting and bestow blessings
on the community:
“Lord we ask you to send your spirit of servanthood
upon all of us gathered here this evening to do your
work for the benefit of all in our community. We ask
you to bless our elected and appointed officials so they
may deliberate with wisdom and act with courage.
Bless the members of our community who come here
Page 114 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 3
to speak before the board so they may state their

cause with honesty and humility. . . . Lord we ask you
to bless us all, that everything we do here tonight will
move you to welcome us one day into your kingdom as
good and faithful servants. We ask this in the name
of our brother Jesus. Amen.” Id., at 45a.
Some of the ministers spoke in a distinctly Christian
idiom; and a minority invoked religious holidays, scrip
ture, or doctrine, as in the following prayer:
“Lord, God of all creation, we give you thanks and
praise for your presence and action in the world. We
look with anticipation to the celebration of Holy Week
and Easter. It is in the solemn events of next week
that we find the very heart and center of our Chris
tian faith. We acknowledge the saving sacrifice of
Jesus Christ on the cross. We draw strength, vitality,
and confidence from his resurrection at Easter. . . .
We pray for peace in the world, an end to terrorism,
violence, conflict, and war. We pray for stability, de
mocracy, and good government in those countries in
which our armed forces are now serving, especially in
Iraq and Afghanistan. . . . Praise and glory be yours,
O Lord, now and forever more. Amen.” Id., at 88a–
89a.
Respondents Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens
attended town board meetings to speak about issues of
local concern, and they objected that the prayers violated
their religious or philosophical views. At one meeting,
Galloway admonished board members that she found
the prayers “offensive,” “intolerable,” and an affront to a
“diverse community.” Complaint in No. 08–cv–6088
(WDNY), ¶66. After respondents complained that Chris
tian themes pervaded the prayers, to the exclusion of
citizens who did not share those beliefs, the town invited a
Jewish layman and the chairman of the local Baha’i tem
ple to deliver prayers. A Wiccan priestess who had read
Page 115 of 213

press reports about the prayer controversy requested, and

was granted, an opportunity to give the invocation.
Galloway and Stephens brought suit in the United
States District Court for the Western District of New
York. They alleged that the town violated the First
Amendment’s Establishment Clause by preferring Chris
tians over other prayer givers and by sponsoring sectarian
prayers, such as those given “in Jesus’ name.” 732
F. Supp. 2d 195, 203 (2010). They did not seek an end to
the prayer practice, but rather requested an injunction
that would limit the town to “inclusive and ecumenical”
prayers that referred only to a “generic God” and would
not associate the government with any one faith or belief.
Id., at 210, 241.
The District Court on summary judgment upheld the
prayer practice as consistent with the First Amendment.
It found no impermissible preference for Christianity,
noting that the town had opened the prayer program to all
creeds and excluded none. Although most of the prayer
givers were Christian, this fact reflected only the predom
inantly Christian identity of the town’s congregations,
rather than an official policy or practice of discriminating
against minority faiths. The District Court found no
authority for the proposition that the First Amendment
required Greece to invite clergy from congregations be
yond its borders in order to achieve a minimum level of
religious diversity.
The District Court also rejected the theory that legisla
tive prayer must be nonsectarian. The court began its
inquiry with the opinion in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U. S.
783, which permitted prayer in state legislatures by a
chaplain paid from the public purse, so long as the prayer
opportunity was not “exploited to proselytize or advance
any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief,” id., at
794–795. With respect to the prayer in Greece, the Dis
trict Court concluded that references to Jesus, and the
occasional request that the audience stand for the prayer,
Page 116 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 5
did not amount to impermissible proselytizing. It located

in Marsh no additional requirement that the prayers be
purged of sectarian content. In this regard the court
quoted recent invocations offered in the U. S. House of
Representatives “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,”
e.g., 156 Cong Rec. H5205 (June 30, 2010), and situated
prayer in this context as part a long tradition. Finally, the
trial court noted this Court’s statement in County of Alle-
gheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pitts-
burgh Chapter, 492 U. S. 573, 603 (1989), that the prayers
in Marsh did not offend the Establishment Clause “be
cause the particular chaplain had ‘removed all references
to Christ.’ ” But the District Court did not read that
statement to mandate that legislative prayer be nonsec
tarian, at least in circumstances where the town permitted
clergy from a variety of faiths to give invocations. By
welcoming many viewpoints, the District Court concluded,
the town would be unlikely to give the impression that it
was affiliating itself with any one religion.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed.
681 F. 3d 20, 34 (2012). It held that some aspects of the
prayer program, viewed in their totality by a reasonable
observer, conveyed the message that Greece was endors
ing Christianity. The town’s failure to promote the prayer
opportunity to the public, or to invite ministers from con
gregations outside the town limits, all but “ensured a
Christian viewpoint.” Id., at 30–31. Although the court
found no inherent problem in the sectarian content of the
prayers, it concluded that the “steady drumbeat” of Chris
tian prayer, unbroken by invocations from other faith
traditions, tended to affiliate the town with Christianity.
Id., at 32. Finally, the court found it relevant that guest
clergy sometimes spoke on behalf of all present at the
meeting, as by saying “let us pray,” or by asking audience
members to stand and bow their heads: “The invitation . . .
to participate in the prayer . . . placed audience members
Page 117 of 213

who are nonreligious or adherents of non-Christian reli

gion in the awkward position of either participating in
prayers invoking beliefs they did not share or appearing to
show disrespect for the invocation.” Ibid. That board
members bowed their heads or made the sign of the cross
further conveyed the message that the town endorsed
Christianity. The Court of Appeals emphasized that it
was the “interaction of the facts present in this case,”
rather than any single element, that rendered the prayer
unconstitutional. Id., at 33.
Having granted certiorari to decide whether the town’s
prayer practice violates the Establishment Clause, 569
U. S. ___ (2013), the Court now reverses the judgment of
the Court of Appeals.
II
In Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U. S. 783, the Court found
no First Amendment violation in the Nebraska Legisla
ture’s practice of opening its sessions with a prayer deliv
ered by a chaplain paid from state funds. The decision
concluded that legislative prayer, while religious in na
ture, has long been understood as compatible with the
Establishment Clause. As practiced by Congress since the
framing of the Constitution, legislative prayer lends grav-
ity to public business, reminds lawmakers to transcend
petty differences in pursuit of a higher purpose, and ex
presses a common aspiration to a just and peaceful soci-
ety. See Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U. S. 668, 693 (1984)
(O’Connor, J., concurring); cf. A. Adams & C. Emmerich, A
Nation Dedicated to Religious Liberty 83 (1990). The
Court has considered this symbolic expression to be a
“tolerable acknowledgement of beliefs widely held,” Marsh,
463 U. S., at 792, rather than a first, treacherous step
towards establishment of a state church.
Marsh is sometimes described as “carving out an excep
tion” to the Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence,
Page 118 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 7
because it sustained legislative prayer without subjecting

the practice to “any of the formal ‘tests’ that have tradi
tionally structured” this inquiry. Id., at 796, 813 (Bren
nan, J., dissenting). The Court in Marsh found those tests
unnecessary because history supported the conclusion that
legislative invocations are compatible with the Establish
ment Clause. The First Congress made it an early item of
business to appoint and pay official chaplains, and both
the House and Senate have maintained the office virtually
uninterrupted since that time. See id., at 787–789, and
n. 10; N. Feldman, Divided by God 109 (2005). But see
Marsh, supra, at 791–792, and n. 12 (noting dissenting
views among the Framers); Madison, “Detached Memo
randa”, 3 Wm. & Mary Quarterly 534, 558–559 (1946)
(hereinafter Madison’s Detached Memoranda). When
Marsh was decided, in 1983, legislative prayer had per
sisted in the Nebraska Legislature for more than a cen-
tury, and the majority of the other States also had the
same, consistent practice. 463 U. S., at 788–790, and n. 11.
Although no information has been cited by the parties to
indicate how many local legislative bodies open their
meetings with prayer, this practice too has historical
precedent. See Reports of Proceedings of the City Council
of Boston for the Year Commencing Jan. 1, 1909, and
Ending Feb. 5, 1910, pp. 1–2 (1910) (Rev. Arthur Little)
(“And now we desire to invoke Thy presence, Thy blessing,
and Thy guidance upon those who are gathered here this
morning . . .”). “In light of the unambiguous and unbroken
history of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that
the practice of opening legislative sessions with a prayer
has become part of the fabric of our society.” Marsh,
supra, at 792.
Yet Marsh must not be understood as permitting a
practice that would amount to a constitutional violation if
not for its historical foundation. The case teaches instead
that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted “by
Page 119 of 213

reference to historical practices and understandings.”

County of Allegheny, 492 U. S., at 670 (KENNEDY, J., con
curring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). That
the First Congress provided for the appointment of chap
lains only days after approving language for the First
Amendment demonstrates that the Framers considered
legislative prayer a benign acknowledgment of religion’s
role in society. D. Currie, The Constitution in Congress:
The Federalist Period 1789–1801, pp. 12–13 (1997). In the
1850’s, the judiciary committees in both the House and
Senate reevaluated the practice of official chaplaincies
after receiving petitions to abolish the office. The commit
tees concluded that the office posed no threat of an estab
lishment because lawmakers were not compelled to attend
the daily prayer, S. Rep. No. 376, 32d Cong., 2d Sess., 2
(1853); no faith was excluded by law, nor any favored, id.,
at 3; and the cost of the chaplain’s salary imposed a van
ishingly small burden on taxpayers, H. Rep. No. 124, 33d
Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1854). Marsh stands for the proposi
tion that it is not necessary to define the precise boundary
of the Establishment Clause where history shows that the
specific practice is permitted. Any test the Court adopts
must acknowledge a practice that was accepted by the
Framers and has withstood the critical scrutiny of time
and political change. County of Allegheny, supra, at 670
(opinion of KENNEDY, J.); see also School Dist. of Abington
Township v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 294 (1963) (Brennan,
J., concurring) (“[T]he line we must draw between the
permissible and the impermissible is one which accords
with history and faithfully reflects the understanding of
the Founding Fathers”). A test that would sweep away
what has so long been settled would create new controversy
and begin anew the very divisions along religious lines
that the Establishment Clause seeks to prevent. See Van
Orden v. Perry, 545 U. S. 677, 702–704 (2005) (BREYER, J.,
concurring in judgment).
Page 120 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 9
The Court’s inquiry, then, must be to determine whether

the prayer practice in the town of Greece fits within the
tradition long followed in Congress and the state legisla
tures. Respondents assert that the town’s prayer exercise
falls outside that tradition and transgresses the Estab
lishment Clause for two independent but mutually rein
forcing reasons. First, they argue that Marsh did not
approve prayers containing sectarian language or themes,
such as the prayers offered in Greece that referred to the
“death, resurrection, and ascension of the Savior Jesus
Christ,” App. 129a, and the “saving sacrifice of Jesus
Christ on the cross,” id., at 88a. Second, they argue that
the setting and conduct of the town board meetings create
social pressures that force nonadherents to remain in the
room or even feign participation in order to avoid offend
ing the representatives who sponsor the prayer and will
vote on matters citizens bring before the board. The sec
tarian content of the prayers compounds the subtle coer
cive pressures, they argue, because the nonbeliever who
might tolerate ecumenical prayer is forced to do the same
for prayer that might be inimical to his or her beliefs.
A
Respondents maintain that prayer must be nonsectarian,
or not identifiable with any one religion; and they fault
the town for permitting guest chaplains to deliver prayers
that “use overtly Christian terms” or “invoke specifics of
Christian theology.” Brief for Respondents 20. A prayer is
fitting for the public sphere, in their view, only if it con
tains the ‘ “most general, nonsectarian reference to God,’ ”
id., at 33 (quoting M. Meyerson, Endowed by Our Creator:
The Birth of Religious Freedom in America 11–12 (2012)),
and eschews mention of doctrines associated with any one
faith, Brief for Respondents 32–33. They argue that prayer
which contemplates “the workings of the Holy Spirit, the
events of Pentecost, and the belief that God ‘has raised
Page 121 of 213

up the Lord Jesus’ and ‘will raise us, in our turn, and put
us by His side’ ” would be impermissible, as would any
prayer that reflects dogma particular to a single faith
tradition. Id., at 34 (quoting App. 89a and citing id., at
56a, 123a, 134a).
An insistence on nonsectarian or ecumenical prayer as a
single, fixed standard is not consistent with the tradition
of legislative prayer outlined in the Court’s cases. The
Court found the prayers in Marsh consistent with the
First Amendment not because they espoused only a ge-
neric theism but because our history and tradition have
shown that prayer in this limited context could “coexis[t]
with the principles of disestablishment and religious
freedom.” 463 U. S., at 786. The Congress that drafted
the First Amendment would have been accustomed to
invocations containing explicitly religious themes of the
sort respondents find objectionable. One of the Senate’s
first chaplains, the Rev. William White, gave prayers in a
series that included the Lord’s Prayer, the Collect for
Ash Wednesday, prayers for peace and grace, a general
thanksgiving, St. Chrysostom’s Prayer, and a prayer
seeking “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, &c.” Letter
from W. White to H. Jones (Dec. 29, 1830), in B. Wilson,
Memoir of the Life of the Right Reverend William White,
D. D., Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the
State of Pennsylvania 322 (1839); see also New Hampshire
Patriot & State Gazette, Dec. 15, 1823, p. 1 (describing a
Senate prayer addressing the “Throne of Grace”); Cong.
Globe, 37th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1861) (reciting the Lord’s
Prayer). The decidedly Christian nature of these prayers
must not be dismissed as the relic of a time when our
Nation was less pluralistic than it is today. Congress
continues to permit its appointed and visiting chaplains to
express themselves in a religious idiom. It acknowledges
our growing diversity not by proscribing sectarian content
but by welcoming ministers of many creeds. See, e.g., 160
Page 122 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 11
Cong. Rec. S1329 (Mar. 6, 2014) (Dalai Lama) (“I am a

Buddhist monk—a simple Buddhist monk—so we pray to
Buddha and all other Gods”); 159 Cong. Rec. H7006 (Nov.
13, 2013) (Rabbi Joshua Gruenberg) (“Our God and God of
our ancestors, Everlasting Spirit of the Universe . . .”); 159
Cong. Rec. H3024 (June 4, 2013) (Satguru Bodhinatha
Veylanswami) (“Hindu scripture declares, without equivo
cation, that the highest of high ideals is to never know-
ingly harm anyone”); 158 Cong. Rec. H5633 (Aug. 2, 2012)
(Imam Nayyar Imam) (“The final prophet of God, Mu
hammad, peace be upon him, stated: ‘The leaders of a
people are a representation of their deeds’ ”).
The contention that legislative prayer must be generic
or nonsectarian derives from dictum in County of Allegheny,
492 U. S. 573, that was disputed when written and has
been repudiated by later cases. There the Court held that
a crèche placed on the steps of a county courthouse to
celebrate the Christmas season violated the Establish
ment Clause because it had “the effect of endorsing a
patently Christian message.” Id., at 601. Four dissenting
Justices disputed that endorsement could be the proper
test, as it likely would condemn a host of traditional prac
tices that recognize the role religion plays in our society,
among them legislative prayer and the “forthrightly reli
gious” Thanksgiving proclamations issued by nearly every
President since Washington. Id., at 670–671. The Court
sought to counter this criticism by recasting Marsh to
permit only prayer that contained no overtly Christian
references:
“However history may affect the constitutionality of
nonsectarian references to religion by the government,
history cannot legitimate practices that demonstrate
the government’s allegiance to a particular sect or
creed . . . . The legislative prayers involved in Marsh
did not violate this principle because the particular
Page 123 of 213

chaplain had ‘removed all references to Christ.’ ” Id.,

at 603 (quoting Marsh, supra, at 793, n. 14; footnote
omitted).
This proposition is irreconcilable with the facts of Marsh
and with its holding and reasoning. Marsh nowhere sug
gested that the constitutionality of legislative prayer turns
on the neutrality of its content. The opinion noted that
Nebraska’s chaplain, the Rev. Robert E. Palmer, modu-
lated the “explicitly Christian” nature of his prayer and
“removed all references to Christ” after a Jewish law
maker complained. 463 U. S., at 793, n. 14. With this foot
note, the Court did no more than observe the practical
demands placed on a minister who holds a permanent,
appointed position in a legislature and chooses to write his
or her prayers to appeal to more members, or at least to
give less offense to those who object. See Mallory, “An
Officer of the House Which Chooses Him, and Nothing
More”: How Should Marsh v. Chambers Apply to Rotating
Chaplains?, 73 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1421, 1445 (2006). Marsh
did not suggest that Nebraska’s prayer practice would
have failed had the chaplain not acceded to the legislator’s
request. Nor did the Court imply the rule that prayer
violates the Establishment Clause any time it is given in
the name of a figure deified by only one faith or creed. See
Van Orden, 545 U. S., at 688, n. 8 (recognizing that the
prayers in Marsh were “often explicitly Christian” and
rejecting the view that this gave rise to an establishment
violation). To the contrary, the Court instructed that the
“content of the prayer is not of concern to judges,” provided
“there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has
been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to
disparage any other, faith or belief.” 463 U. S., at 794–
795.
To hold that invocations must be nonsectarian would
force the legislatures that sponsor prayers and the courts
Page 124 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 13
that are asked to decide these cases to act as supervisors

and censors of religious speech, a rule that would involve
government in religious matters to a far greater degree
than is the case under the town’s current practice of nei
ther editing or approving prayers in advance nor criticiz
ing their content after the fact. Cf. Hosanna-Tabor Evan-
gelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U. S.
___, ___ (2012) (slip op., at 13–14). Our Government is
prohibited from prescribing prayers to be recited in our
public institutions in order to promote a preferred system
of belief or code of moral behavior. Engel v. Vitale, 370
U. S. 421, 430 (1962). It would be but a few steps removed
from that prohibition for legislatures to require chaplains
to redact the religious content from their message in order
to make it acceptable for the public sphere. Government
may not mandate a civic religion that stifles any but the
most generic reference to the sacred any more than it may
prescribe a religious orthodoxy. See Lee v. Weisman, 505
U. S. 577, 590 (1992) (“The suggestion that government
may establish an official or civic religion as a means of
avoiding the establishment of a religion with more specific
creeds strikes us as a contradiction that cannot be ac-
cepted”); Schempp, 374 U. S., at 306 (Goldberg, J., concur
ring) (arguing that “untutored devotion to the concept of
neutrality” must not lead to “a brooding and pervasive
devotion to the secular”).
Respondents argue, in effect, that legislative prayer may
be addressed only to a generic God. The law and the
Court could not draw this line for each specific prayer or
seek to require ministers to set aside their nuanced and
deeply personal beliefs for vague and artificial ones.
There is doubt, in any event, that consensus might be
reached as to what qualifies as generic or nonsectarian.
Honorifics like “Lord of Lords” or “King of Kings” might
strike a Christian audience as ecumenical, yet these titles
may have no place in the vocabulary of other faith tradi
Page 125 of 213

tions. The difficulty, indeed the futility, of sifting sectarian

from nonsectarian speech is illustrated by a letter that
a lawyer for the respondents sent the town in the early
stages of this litigation. The letter opined that references
to “Father, God, Lord God, and the Almighty” would be
acceptable in public prayer, but that references to “Jesus
Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Trinity” would not.
App. 21a. Perhaps the writer believed the former group
ing would be acceptable to monotheists. Yet even seem
ingly general references to God or the Father might alien
ate nonbelievers or polytheists. McCreary County v.
American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U. S. 844, 893
(2005) (SCALIA, J., dissenting). Because it is unlikely that
prayer will be inclusive beyond dispute, it would be un
wise to adopt what respondents think is the next-best
option: permitting those religious words, and only those
words, that are acceptable to the majority, even if they
will exclude some. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U. S. 488, 495
(1961). The First Amendment is not a majority rule, and
government may not seek to define permissible categories
of religious speech. Once it invites prayer into the public
sphere, government must permit a prayer giver to address
his or her own God or gods as conscience dictates, unfet
tered by what an administrator or judge considers to be
nonsectarian.
In rejecting the suggestion that legislative prayer must
be nonsectarian, the Court does not imply that no con
straints remain on its content. The relevant constraint
derives from its place at the opening of legislative ses
sions, where it is meant to lend gravity to the occasion and
reflect values long part of the Nation’s heritage. Prayer
that is solemn and respectful in tone, that invites law
makers to reflect upon shared ideals and common ends
before they embark on the fractious business of governing,
serves that legitimate function. If the course and practice
over time shows that the invocations denigrate nonbeliev
Page 126 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 15
ers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach

conversion, many present may consider the prayer to fall
short of the desire to elevate the purpose of the occasion
and to unite lawmakers in their common effort. That
circumstance would present a different case than the one
presently before the Court.
The tradition reflected in Marsh permits chaplains to
ask their own God for blessings of peace, justice, and
freedom that find appreciation among people of all faiths.
That a prayer is given in the name of Jesus, Allah, or
Jehovah, or that it makes passing reference to religious
doctrines, does not remove it from that tradition. These
religious themes provide particular means to universal
ends. Prayer that reflects beliefs specific to only some
creeds can still serve to solemnize the occasion, so long as
the practice over time is not “exploited to proselytize or
advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or be
lief.” Marsh, 463 U. S., at 794–795.
It is thus possible to discern in the prayers offered to
Congress a commonality of theme and tone. While these
prayers vary in their degree of religiosity, they often seek
peace for the Nation, wisdom for its lawmakers, and jus
tice for its people, values that count as universal and that
are embodied not only in religious traditions, but in our
founding documents and laws. The first prayer delivered
to the Continental Congress by the Rev. Jacob Duché on
Sept. 7, 1774, provides an example:
“Be Thou present O God of Wisdom and direct the
counsel of this Honorable Assembly; enable them to
settle all things on the best and surest foundations;
that the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that
Order, Harmony, and Peace be effectually restored,
and the Truth and Justice, Religion and Piety, prevail
and flourish among the people.
“Preserve the health of their bodies, and the vigor of
Page 127 of 213

their minds, shower down on them, and the millions

they here represent, such temporal Blessings as Thou
seest expedient for them in this world, and crown
them with everlasting Glory in the world to come. All
this we ask in the name and through the merits of
Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Saviour, Amen.” W.
Federer, America’s God and Country 137 (2000).
From the earliest days of the Nation, these invocations
have been addressed to assemblies comprising many
different creeds. These ceremonial prayers strive for the
idea that people of many faiths may be united in a com
munity of tolerance and devotion. Even those who dis-
agree as to religious doctrine may find common ground in
the desire to show respect for the divine in all aspects of
their lives and being. Our tradition assumes that adult
citizens, firm in their own beliefs, can tolerate and per
haps appreciate a ceremonial prayer delivered by a person
of a different faith. See Letter from John Adams to Abi
gail Adams (Sept. 16, 1774), in C. Adams, Familiar Letters
of John Adams and His Wife Abigail Adams, During the
Revolution 37–38 (1876).
The prayers delivered in the town of Greece do not fall
outside the tradition this Court has recognized. A number
of the prayers did invoke the name of Jesus, the Heavenly
Father, or the Holy Spirit, but they also invoked universal
themes, as by celebrating the changing of the seasons or
calling for a “spirit of cooperation” among town leaders.
App. 31a, 38a. Among numerous examples of such prayer
in the record is the invocation given by the Rev. Richard
Barbour at the September 2006 board meeting:
“Gracious God, you have richly blessed our nation
and this community. Help us to remember your gen
erosity and give thanks for your goodness. Bless the
elected leaders of the Greece Town Board as they con
duct the business of our town this evening. Give them
Page 128 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 17
wisdom, courage, discernment and a single-minded

desire to serve the common good. We ask your bless
ing on all public servants, and especially on our police
force, firefighters, and emergency medical person
nel. . . . Respectful of every religious tradition, I offer
this prayer in the name of God’s only son Jesus
Christ, the Lord, Amen.” Id., at 98a–99a.
Respondents point to other invocations that disparaged
those who did not accept the town’s prayer practice. One
guest minister characterized objectors as a “minority” who
are “ignorant of the history of our country,” id., at 108a,
while another lamented that other towns did not have
“God-fearing” leaders, id., at 79a. Although these two
remarks strayed from the rationale set out in Marsh, they
do not despoil a practice that on the whole reflects and
embraces our tradition. Absent a pattern of prayers that
over time denigrate, proselytize, or betray an impermissi
ble government purpose, a challenge based solely on the
content of a prayer will not likely establish a constitutional
violation. Marsh, indeed, requires an inquiry into the
prayer opportunity as a whole, rather than into the con
tents of a single prayer. 463 U. S., at 794–795.
Finally, the Court disagrees with the view taken by the
Court of Appeals that the town of Greece contravened the
Establishment Clause by inviting a predominantly Chris
tian set of ministers to lead the prayer. The town made
reasonable efforts to identify all of the congregations
located within its borders and represented that it would
welcome a prayer by any minister or layman who wished
to give one. That nearly all of the congregations in town
turned out to be Christian does not reflect an aversion or
bias on the part of town leaders against minority faiths.
So long as the town maintains a policy of nondiscrimina
tion, the Constitution does not require it to search beyond
its borders for non-Christian prayer givers in an effort to
Page 129 of 213

OpinionofofKthe
Opinion Court
ENNEDY , J.
achieve religious balancing. The quest to promote “a

‘diversity’ of religious views” would require the town “to
make wholly inappropriate judgments about the number
of religions [it] should sponsor and the relative frequency
with which it should sponsor each,” Lee, 505 U. S., at 617
(Souter, J., concurring), a form of government entangle
ment with religion that is far more troublesome than the
current approach.
B
Respondents further seek to distinguish the town’s
prayer practice from the tradition upheld in Marsh on the
ground that it coerces participation by nonadherents.
They and some amici contend that prayer conducted in the
intimate setting of a town board meeting differs in funda
mental ways from the invocations delivered in Congress
and state legislatures, where the public remains segregated
from legislative activity and may not address the body
except by occasional invitation. Citizens attend town
meetings, on the other hand, to accept awards; speak on
matters of local importance; and petition the board for
action that may affect their economic interests, such as
the granting of permits, business licenses, and zoning
variances. Respondents argue that the public may feel
subtle pressure to participate in prayers that violate their
beliefs in order to please the board members from whom
they are about to seek a favorable ruling. In their view
the fact that board members in small towns know many of
their constituents by name only increases the pressure to
conform.
It is an elemental First Amendment principle that
government may not coerce its citizens “to support or
participate in any religion or its exercise.” County of
Allegheny, 492 U. S., at 659 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in
judgment in part and dissenting in part); see also Van
Orden, 545 U. S., at 683 (plurality opinion) (recognizing
Page 130 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 19
OpinionofofKthe
Opinion Court
ENNEDY , J.
that our “institutions must not press religious observances

upon their citizens”). On the record in this case the Court
is not persuaded that the town of Greece, through the act
of offering a brief, solemn, and respectful prayer to open
its monthly meetings, compelled its citizens to engage in a
religious observance. The inquiry remains a fact-sensitive
one that considers both the setting in which the prayer
arises and the audience to whom it is directed.
The prayer opportunity in this case must be evaluated
against the backdrop of historical practice. As a practice
that has long endured, legislative prayer has become part
of our heritage and tradition, part of our expressive idiom,
similar to the Pledge of Allegiance, inaugural prayer, or
the recitation of “God save the United States and this
honorable Court” at the opening of this Court’s sessions.
See Lynch, 465 U. S., at 693 (O’Connor, J., concurring). It
is presumed that the reasonable observer is acquainted
with this tradition and understands that its purposes are
to lend gravity to public proceedings and to acknowledge
the place religion holds in the lives of many private citi
zens, not to afford government an opportunity to proselyt
ize or force truant constituents into the pews. See Salazar
v. Buono, 559 U. S. 700, 720–721 (2010) (plurality opin
ion); Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U. S.
290, 308 (2000). That many appreciate these acknowl
edgments of the divine in our public institutions does not
suggest that those who disagree are compelled to join the
expression or approve its content. West Virginia Bd. of
Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943).
The principal audience for these invocations is not,
indeed, the public but lawmakers themselves, who may
find that a moment of prayer or quiet reflection sets the
mind to a higher purpose and thereby eases the task of
governing. The District Court in Marsh described the
prayer exercise as “an internal act” directed at the Ne
braska Legislature’s “own members,” Chambers v. Marsh,
Page 131 of 213

OpinionofofKthe
Opinion Court
ENNEDY , J.
504 F. Supp. 585, 588 (Neb. 1980), rather than an effort to

promote religious observance among the public. See also
Lee, 505 U. S., at 630, n. 8 (Souter, J., concurring) (describ
ing Marsh as a case “in which government officials in
voke[d] spiritual inspiration entirely for their own bene
fit”); Atheists of Fla., Inc. v. Lakeland, 713 F. 3d 577, 583
(CA11 2013) (quoting a city resolution providing for prayer
“for the benefit and blessing of ” elected leaders); Madi
son’s Detached Memoranda 558 (characterizing prayer in
Congress as “religious worship for national representa
tives”); Brief for U. S. Senator Marco Rubio et al. as Amici
Curiae 30–33; Brief for 12 Members of Congress as Amici
Curiae 6. To be sure, many members of the public find
these prayers meaningful and wish to join them. But their
purpose is largely to accommodate the spiritual needs of
lawmakers and connect them to a tradition dating to the
time of the Framers. For members of town boards and
commissions, who often serve part-time and as volunteers,
ceremonial prayer may also reflect the values they hold as
private citizens. The prayer is an opportunity for them to
show who and what they are without denying the right to
dissent by those who disagree.
The analysis would be different if town board members
directed the public to participate in the prayers, singled
out dissidents for opprobrium, or indicated that their
decisions might be influenced by a person’s acquiescence
in the prayer opportunity. No such thing occurred in the
town of Greece. Although board members themselves
stood, bowed their heads, or made the sign of the cross
during the prayer, they at no point solicited similar ges
tures by the public. Respondents point to several occa
sions where audience members were asked to rise for the
prayer. These requests, however, came not from town
leaders but from the guest ministers, who presumably are
accustomed to directing their congregations in this way
and might have done so thinking the action was inclusive,
Page 132 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 21
OpinionofofKthe
Opinion Court
ENNEDY , J.
not coercive. See App. 69a (“Would you bow your heads
with me as we invite the Lord’s presence here tonight?”);
id., at 93a (“Let us join our hearts and minds together in
prayer”); id., at 102a (“Would you join me in a moment of
prayer?”); id., at 110a (“Those who are willing may join me
now in prayer”). Respondents suggest that constituents
might feel pressure to join the prayers to avoid irritating
the officials who would be ruling on their petitions, but
this argument has no evidentiary support. Nothing in the
record indicates that town leaders allocated benefits and
burdens based on participation in the prayer, or that
citizens were received differently depending on whether
they joined the invocation or quietly declined. In no in
stance did town leaders signal disfavor toward nonpartici
pants or suggest that their stature in the community was
in any way diminished. A practice that classified citizens
based on their religious views would violate the Constitu
tion, but that is not the case before this Court.
In their declarations in the trial court, respondents
stated that the prayers gave them offense and made them
feel excluded and disrespected. Offense, however, does not
equate to coercion. Adults often encounter speech they
find disagreeable; and an Establishment Clause violation
is not made out any time a person experiences a sense of
affront from the expression of contrary religious views in a
legislative forum, especially where, as here, any member
of the public is welcome in turn to offer an invocation
reflecting his or her own convictions. See Elk Grove Uni-
fied School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U. S. 1, 44 (2004)
(O’Connor, J., concurring) (“The compulsion of which
Justice Jackson was concerned . . . was of the direct sort—
the Constitution does not guarantee citizens a right
entirely to avoid ideas with which they disagree”). If circum-
stances arise in which the pattern and practice of ceremo
nial, legislative prayer is alleged to be a means to coerce or
intimidate others, the objection can be addressed in the
Page 133 of 213

OpinionofofKthe
Opinion Court
ENNEDY , J.
regular course. But the showing has not been made here,
where the prayers neither chastised dissenters nor at
tempted lengthy disquisition on religious dogma. Courts
remain free to review the pattern of prayers over time to
determine whether they comport with the tradition of
solemn, respectful prayer approved in Marsh, or whether
coercion is a real and substantial likelihood. But in the
general course legislative bodies do not engage in imper
missible coercion merely by exposing constituents to prayer
they would rather not hear and in which they need not
participate. See County of Allegheny, 492 U. S., at 670
(KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissent
ing in part).
This case can be distinguished from the conclusions and
holding of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577. There the Court
found that, in the context of a graduation where school
authorities maintained close supervision over the conduct
of the students and the substance of the ceremony, a
religious invocation was coercive as to an objecting stu
dent. Id., at 592–594; see also Santa Fe Independent
School Dist., 530 U. S., at 312. Four Justices dissented in
Lee, but the circumstances the Court confronted there are
not present in this case and do not control its outcome.
Nothing in the record suggests that members of the public
are dissuaded from leaving the meeting room during the
prayer, arriving late, or even, as happened here, making a
later protest. In this case, as in Marsh, board members
and constituents are “free to enter and leave with little
comment and for any number of reasons.” Lee, supra, at
597. Should nonbelievers choose to exit the room during a
prayer they find distasteful, their absence will not stand
out as disrespectful or even noteworthy. And should they
remain, their quiet acquiescence will not, in light of our
traditions, be interpreted as an agreement with the words
or ideas expressed. Neither choice represents an unconsti
tutional imposition as to mature adults, who “presumably”
Page 134 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 23
OpinionofofKthe
Opinion Court
ENNEDY , J.
are “not readily susceptible to religious indoctrination or

peer pressure.” Marsh, 463 U. S., at 792 (internal quota
tion marks and citations omitted).
In the town of Greece, the prayer is delivered during the
ceremonial portion of the town’s meeting. Board members
are not engaged in policymaking at this time, but in more
general functions, such as swearing in new police officers,
inducting high school athletes into the town hall of fame,
and presenting proclamations to volunteers, civic groups,
and senior citizens. It is a moment for town leaders to
recognize the achievements of their constituents and the
aspects of community life that are worth celebrating. By
inviting ministers to serve as chaplain for the month, and
welcoming them to the front of the room alongside civic
leaders, the town is acknowledging the central place that
religion, and religious institutions, hold in the lives of
those present. Indeed, some congregations are not simply
spiritual homes for town residents but also the provider of
social services for citizens regardless of their beliefs. See
App. 31a (thanking a pastor for his “community involve
ment”); id., at 44a (thanking a deacon “for the job that you
have done on behalf of our community”). The inclusion of
a brief, ceremonial prayer as part of a larger exercise in
civic recognition suggests that its purpose and effect are to
acknowledge religious leaders and the institutions they
represent rather than to exclude or coerce nonbelievers.
Ceremonial prayer is but a recognition that, since this
Nation was founded and until the present day, many
Americans deem that their own existence must be under
stood by precepts far beyond the authority of government
to alter or define and that willing participation in civic
affairs can be consistent with a brief acknowledgment of
their belief in a higher power, always with due respect for
those who adhere to other beliefs. The prayer in this case
has a permissible ceremonial purpose. It is not an uncon
stitutional establishment of religion.
Page 135 of 213

* * *
The town of Greece does not violate the First Amend
ment by opening its meetings with prayer that comports
with our tradition and does not coerce participation by
nonadherents. The judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Page 136 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 1
ALITO, J., concurring

_________________
No. 12–696
_________________

[May 5, 2014]
JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins,

concurring.
I write separately to respond to the principal dissent,
which really consists of two very different but intertwined
opinions. One is quite narrow; the other is sweeping. I
will address both.
I
First, however, since the principal dissent accuses the
Court of being blind to the facts of this case, post, at 20
(opinion of KAGAN, J.), I recount facts that I find particu
larly salient.
The town of Greece is a municipality in upstate New
York that borders the city of Rochester. The town decided
to emulate a practice long established in Congress and
state legislatures by having a brief prayer before sessions
of the town board. The task of lining up clergy members
willing to provide such a prayer was given to the town’s
office of constituent services. 732 F. Supp. 2d 195, 197–
198 (WDNY 2010). For the first four years of the practice,
a clerical employee in the office would randomly call reli
gious organizations listed in the Greece “Community
Guide,” a local directory published by the Greece Chamber
of Commerce, until she was able to find somebody willing
to give the invocation. Id., at 198. This employee eventu
Page 137 of 213

ally began keeping a list of individuals who had agreed to

give the invocation, and when a second clerical employee
took over the task of finding prayer-givers, the first em
ployee gave that list to the second. Id., at 198, 199. The
second employee then randomly called organizations on
that list—and possibly others in the Community Guide—
until she found someone who agreed to provide the prayer.
Id., at 199.
Apparently, all the houses of worship listed in the local
Community Guide were Christian churches. Id., at 198–
200, 203. That is unsurprising given the small number of
non-Christians in the area. Although statistics for the
town of Greece alone do not seem to be available, statistics
have been compiled for Monroe County, which includes
both the town of Greece and the city of Rochester. Accord
ing to these statistics, of the county residents who have a
religious affiliation, about 3% are Jewish, and for other
non-Christian faiths, the percentages are smaller.1 There
are no synagogues within the borders of the town of
Greece, id., at 203, but there are several not far away
across the Rochester border. Presumably, Jewish resi
dents of the town worship at one or more of those syna
gogues, but because these synagogues fall outside the
town’s borders, they were not listed in the town’s local
directory, and the responsible town employee did not
include them on her list. Ibid. Nor did she include any
other non-Christian house of worship. Id., at 198–200.2
——————
1 See Assn. of Statisticians of Am. Religious Bodies, C. Grammich
et al., 2010 U. S. Religion Census: Religious Congregations & Member

ship Study 400–401 (2012).
2 It appears that there is one non-Christian house of worship, a Bud
dhist temple, within the town’s borders, but it was not listed in the
town directory. 732 F. Supp. 2d, at 203. Although located within the
town’s borders, the temple has a Rochester mailing address. And while
the respondents “each lived in the Town more than thirty years, neither
was personally familiar with any mosques, synagogues, temples, or
other non-Christian places of worship within the Town.” Id., at 197.
Page 138 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 3
As a result of this procedure, for some time all the pray

ers at the beginning of town board meetings were offered
by Christian clergy, and many of these prayers were dis
tinctively Christian. But respondents do not claim that
the list was attributable to religious bias or favoritism,
and the Court of Appeals acknowledged that the town had
“no religious animus.” 681 F. 3d 20, 32 (CA2 2012).
For some time, the town’s practice does not appear to
have elicited any criticism, but when complaints were
received, the town made it clear that it would permit any
interested residents, including nonbelievers, to provide an
invocation, and the town has never refused a request to
offer an invocation. Id., at 23, 25; 732 F. Supp. 2d, at 197.
The most recent list in the record of persons available to
provide an invocation includes representatives of many
non-Christian faiths. App. in No. 10–3635 (CA2), pp.
A1053–A1055 (hereinafter CA2 App.).
Meetings of the Greece Town Board appear to have been
similar to most other town council meetings across the
country. The prayer took place at the beginning of the
meetings. The board then conducted what might be
termed the “legislative” portion of its agenda, during
which residents were permitted to address the board.
After this portion of the meeting, a separate stage of the
meetings was devoted to such matters as formal requests
for variances. See Brief for Respondents 5–6; CA2 App.
A929–A930; e.g., CA2 App. A1058, A1060.
No prayer occurred before this second part of the pro
ceedings, and therefore I do not understand this case to
involve the constitutionality of a prayer prior to what may
be characterized as an adjudicatory proceeding. The
prayer preceded only the portion of the town board meet
ing that I view as essentially legislative. While it is true
that the matters considered by the board during this
initial part of the meeting might involve very specific
questions, such as the installation of a traffic light or stop
Page 139 of 213

sign at a particular intersection, that does not transform

the nature of this part of the meeting.
II
I turn now to the narrow aspect of the principal dissent,
and what we find here is that the principal dissent’s objec
tion, in the end, is really quite niggling. According to the
principal dissent, the town could have avoided any consti
tutional problem in either of two ways.
A
First, the principal dissent writes, “[i]f the Town Board
had let its chaplains know that they should speak in non
sectarian terms, common to diverse religious groups, then
no one would have valid grounds for complaint.” Post, at
18–19. “Priests and ministers, rabbis and imams,” the
principal dissent continues, “give such invocations all the
time” without any great difficulty. Post, at 19.
Both Houses of Congress now advise guest chaplains
that they should keep in mind that they are addressing
members from a variety of faith traditions, and as a mat
ter of policy, this advice has much to recommend it. But
any argument that nonsectarian prayer is constitutionally
required runs headlong into a long history of contrary
congressional practice. From the beginning, as the Court
notes, many Christian prayers were offered in the House
and Senate, see ante, at 7, and when rabbis and other non-
Christian clergy have served as guest chaplains, their
prayers have often been couched in terms particular to
their faith traditions.3
——————
3 For example, when a rabbi first delivered a prayer at a session of
the House of Representatives in 1860, he appeared “in full rabbinic

dress, ‘piously bedecked in a white tallit and a large velvet skullcap,’ ”
and his prayer “invoked several uniquely Jewish themes and repeated
the Biblical priestly blessing in Hebrew.” See Brief for Nathan Lewin
as Amicus Curiae 9. Many other rabbis have given distinctively Jewish
prayers, id., at 10, and n. 3, and distinctively Islamic, Buddhist, and
Page 140 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 5
Not only is there no historical support for the proposi

tion that only generic prayer is allowed, but as our country
has become more diverse, composing a prayer that is
acceptable to all members of the community who hold
religious beliefs has become harder and harder. It was
one thing to compose a prayer that is acceptable to both
Christians and Jews; it is much harder to compose a prayer
that is also acceptable to followers of Eastern religions
that are now well represented in this country. Many local
clergy may find the project daunting, if not impossible,
and some may feel that they cannot in good faith deliver
such a vague prayer.
In addition, if a town attempts to go beyond simply
recommending that a guest chaplain deliver a prayer that
is broadly acceptable to all members of a particular com
munity (and the groups represented in different communi
ties will vary), the town will inevitably encounter sensitive
problems. Must a town screen and, if necessary, edit
prayers before they are given? If prescreening is not
required, must the town review prayers after they are
delivered in order to determine if they were sufficiently
generic? And if a guest chaplain crosses the line, what
must the town do? Must the chaplain be corrected on the
spot? Must the town strike this chaplain (and perhaps his
or her house of worship) from the approved list?
B
If a town wants to avoid the problems associated with
this first option, the principal dissent argues, it has an
other choice: It may “invit[e] clergy of many faiths.” Post,
at 19. “When one month a clergy member refers to Jesus,
and the next to Allah or Jehovah,” the principal dissent
explains, “the government does not identify itself with one
religion or align itself with that faith’s citizens, and the
——————
Hindu prayers have also been delivered, see ante, at 10–11.
Page 141 of 213

effect of even sectarian prayer is transformed.” Ibid.

If, as the principal dissent appears to concede, such a
rotating system would obviate any constitutional prob
lems, then despite all its high rhetoric, the principal dis
sent’s quarrel with the town of Greece really boils down to
this: The town’s clerical employees did a bad job in compil
ing the list of potential guest chaplains. For that is really
the only difference between what the town did and what
the principal dissent is willing to accept. The Greece
clerical employee drew up her list using the town directory
instead of a directory covering the entire greater Roches
ter area. If the task of putting together the list had been
handled in a more sophisticated way, the employee in
charge would have realized that the town’s Jewish resi
dents attended synagogues on the Rochester side of the
border and would have added one or more synagogues to
the list. But the mistake was at worst careless, and it was
not done with a discriminatory intent. (I would view this
case very differently if the omission of these synagogues
were intentional.)
The informal, imprecise way in which the town lined up
guest chaplains is typical of the way in which many things
are done in small and medium-sized units of local govern
ment. In such places, the members of the governing body
almost always have day jobs that occupy much of their
time. The town almost never has a legal office and instead
relies for legal advice on a local attorney whose practice is
likely to center on such things as land-use regulation,
contracts, and torts. When a municipality like the town of
Greece seeks in good faith to emulate the congressional
practice on which our holding in Marsh v. Chambers, 463
U. S. 783 (1983), was largely based, that municipality
should not be held to have violated the Constitution sim
ply because its method of recruiting guest chaplains lacks
the demographic exactitude that might be regarded as
optimal.
Page 142 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 7
The effect of requiring such exactitude would be to

pressure towns to forswear altogether the practice of
having a prayer before meetings of the town council.
Many local officials, puzzled by our often puzzling Estab
lishment Clause jurisprudence and terrified of the legal
fees that may result from a lawsuit claiming a constitu
tional violation, already think that the safest course is to
ensure that local government is a religion-free zone.
Indeed, the Court of Appeals’ opinion in this case advised
towns that constitutional difficulties “may well prompt
municipalities to pause and think carefully before adopt
ing legislative prayer.” 681 F. 3d, at 34. But if, as prece
dent and historic practice make clear (and the principal
dissent concedes), prayer before a legislative session is not
inherently inconsistent with the First Amendment, then a
unit of local government should not be held to have violated
the First Amendment simply because its procedure for
lining up guest chaplains does not comply in all respects
with what might be termed a “best practices” standard.
III
While the principal dissent, in the end, would demand
no more than a small modification in the procedure that
the town of Greece initially followed, much of the rhetoric
in that opinion sweeps more broadly. Indeed, the logical
thrust of many of its arguments is that prayer is never
permissible prior to meetings of local government legisla
tive bodies. At Greece Town Board meetings, the principal
dissent pointedly notes, ordinary citizens (and even chil
dren!) are often present. Post, at 10–11. The guest chap
lains stand in front of the room facing the public. “[T]he
setting is intimate,” and ordinary citizens are permitted to
speak and to ask the board to address problems that have
a direct effect on their lives. Post, at 11. The meetings are
“occasions for ordinary citizens to engage with and peti
tion their government, often on highly individualized
Page 143 of 213

matters.” Post, at 9. Before a session of this sort, the

principal dissent argues, any prayer that is not acceptable
to all in attendance is out of bounds.
The features of Greece meetings that the principal
dissent highlights are by no means unusual.4 It is com
mon for residents to attend such meetings, either to speak
on matters on the agenda or to request that the town
address other issues that are important to them. Nor is
there anything unusual about the occasional attendance of
students, and when a prayer is given at the beginning of
such a meeting, I expect that the chaplain generally
stands at the front of the room and faces the public. To do
otherwise would probably be seen by many as rude. Fi-
nally, although the principal dissent, post, at 13, attaches
importance to the fact that guest chaplains in the town of
Greece often began with the words “Let us pray,” that is
also commonplace and for many clergy, I suspect, almost
reflexive.5 In short, I see nothing out of the ordinary
about any of the features that the principal dissent notes.
Therefore, if prayer is not allowed at meetings with those
characteristics, local government legislative bodies, unlike
their national and state counterparts, cannot begin their
meetings with a prayer. I see no sound basis for drawing
such a distinction.
——————
4 See,
e.g., prayer practice of Saginaw City Council in Michigan, de
scribed in Letter from Freedom from Religion Foundation to City
Manager, Saginaw City Council (Jan. 31, 2014), online at
http://media.mlive.com/saginawnews_impact/other/Saginaw%20prayer
%20at%20meetings%20letter.pdf (all Internet materials as visited May
2, 2014, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file); prayer practice of
Cobb County commissions in Georgia, described in Pelphrey v. Cobb
County, 410 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (ND Ga. 2006).
5 For example, at the most recent Presidential inauguration, a minis
ter faced the assembly of onlookers on the National Mall and began
with those very words. 159 Cong. Rec. S183, S186 (Jan. 22, 2013).
Page 144 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 9
IV
The principal dissent claims to accept the Court’s deci
sion in Marsh v. Chambers, which upheld the constitu
tionality of the Nebraska Legislature’s practice of prayer
at the beginning of legislative sessions, but the principal
dissent’s acceptance of Marsh appears to be predicated on
the view that the prayer at issue in that case was little
more than a formality to which the legislators paid scant
attention. The principal dissent describes this scene: A
session of the state legislature begins with or without
most members present; a strictly nonsectarian prayer is
recited while some legislators remain seated; and few
members of the public are exposed to the experience. Post,
at 8–9. This sort of perfunctory and hidden-away prayer,
the principal dissent implies, is all that Marsh and the
First Amendment can tolerate.
It is questionable whether the principal dissent accu
rately describes the Nebraska practice at issue in Marsh,6
but what is important is not so much what happened in
Nebraska in the years prior to Marsh, but what happened
before congressional sessions during the period leading up
to the adoption of the First Amendment. By that time,
prayer before legislative sessions already had an impres
sive pedigree, and it is important to recall that history and
the events that led to the adoption of the practice.
The principal dissent paints a picture of “morning in
——————
6 See generally Brief for Robert E. Palmer as Amicus Curiae (Ne
braska Legislature chaplain at issue in Marsh); e.g., id., at 11 (describing

his prayers as routinely referring “to Christ, the Bible, [and] holy
days”). See also Chambers v. Marsh, 504 F. Supp. 585, 590, n. 12 (Neb.
1980) (“A rule of the Nebraska Legislature requires that ‘every member
shall be present within the Legislative Chamber during the meetings of
the Legislature . . . unless excused . . . .’ Unless the excuse for nonat
tendance is deemed sufficient by the legislature, the ‘presence of any
member may be compelled, if necessary, by sending the Sergeant at
Arms’ ” (alterations in original)).
Page 145 of 213

Nebraska” circa 1983, see post, at 9, but it is more instruc

tive to consider “morning in Philadelphia,” September
1774. The First Continental Congress convened in Phila
delphia, and the need for the 13 colonies to unite was
imperative. But “[m]any things set colony apart from
colony,” and prominent among these sources of division
was religion.7 “Purely as a practical matter,” however, the
project of bringing the colonies together required that
these divisions be overcome.8
Samuel Adams sought to bridge these differences by
prodding a fellow Massachusetts delegate to move to open
the session with a prayer.9 As John Adams later recounted,
this motion was opposed on the ground that the dele-
gates were “so divided in religious sentiments, some Epis
copalians, some Quakers, some Anabaptists, some
Presbyterians, and some Congregationalists, that [they]
could not join in the same act of worship.”10 In response,
Samuel Adams proclaimed that “he was no bigot, and
could hear a prayer from a gentleman of piety and virtue,
who was at the same time a friend to his country.”11 Put
ting aside his personal prejudices,12 he moved to invite a
local Anglican minister, Jacob Duché, to lead the first
prayer.13
The following morning, Duché appeared in full “pontifi
——————
7 G. Wills, Inventing America: Jefferson’s Declaration of Independ
ence 46 (1978).
8 N. Cousins, In God We Trust: The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the
American Founding Fathers 4–5, 13 (1958).

9 M. Puls, Samuel Adams: Father of the American Revolution 160
(2006).
10 Letter to Abigail Adams (Sept. 16, 1774), in C. Adams, Familiar
Letters of John Adams and His Wife Abigail Adams, During the Revo
lution 37 (1876).
11 Ibid.
12 See G. Wills, supra, at 46; J. Miller, Sam Adams 85, 87 (1936);
I. Stoll, Samuel Adams: A Life 7, 134–135 (2008).

13 C. Adams, supra, at 37.
Page 146 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 11
cals” and delivered both the Anglican prayers for the day
and an extemporaneous prayer.14 For many of the dele
gates—members of religious groups that had come to
America to escape persecution in Britain—listening to a
distinctively Anglican prayer by a minister of the Church
of England represented an act of notable ecumenism. But
Duché’s prayer met with wide approval—John Adams
wrote that it “filled the bosom of every man” in attend
ance15—and the practice was continued. This first con
gressional prayer was emphatically Christian, and it was
neither an empty formality nor strictly nondenominational.16
But one of its purposes, and presumably one of its
effects, was not to divide, but to unite.
It is no wonder, then, that the practice of beginning
congressional sessions with a prayer was continued after
the Revolution ended and the new Constitution was
adopted. One of the first actions taken by the new Con
gress when it convened in 1789 was to appoint chaplains
for both Houses. The first Senate chaplain, an Episcopa-
lian, was appointed on April 25, 1789, and the first House
chaplain, a Presbyterian, was appointed on May 1.17
Three days later, Madison announced that he planned to
introduce proposed constitutional amendments to protect
individual rights; on June 8, 1789, those amendments
were introduced; and on September 26, 1789, the amend
ments were approved to be sent to the States for ratifica
tion.18 In the years since the adoption of the First
——————
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.; see W. Wells, 2 The Life and Public Services of Samuel
Adams 222–223 (1865); J. Miller, supra, at 320; E. Burnett, The Conti

nental Congress 40 (1941); M. Puls, supra, at 161.
16 First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774, online at http://
chaplain.house.gov/archive/continental.html.
17 1 Annals of Cong. 24–25 (1789); R. Cord, Separation of Church and
State: Historical Fact and Current Fiction 23 (1982).

18 1 Annals of Cong. 247, 424; R. Labunski, James Madison and the
Struggle for the Bill of Rights 240–241 (2006).
Page 147 of 213

Amendment, the practice of prayer before sessions of the

House and Senate has continued, and opening prayers
from a great variety of faith traditions have been offered.
This Court has often noted that actions taken by the
First Congress are presumptively consistent with the Bill
of Rights, see, e.g., Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957,
980 (1991), Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 150–
152 (1925), and this principle has special force when it
comes to the interpretation of the Establishment Clause.
This Court has always purported to base its Establish
ment Clause decisions on the original meaning of that
provision. Thus, in Marsh, when the Court was called
upon to decide whether prayer prior to sessions of a state
legislature was consistent with the Establishment Clause,
we relied heavily on the history of prayer before sessions
of Congress and held that a state legislature may follow a
similar practice. See 463 U. S., at 786–792.
There can be little doubt that the decision in Marsh
reflected the original understanding of the First Amend
ment. It is virtually inconceivable that the First Congress,
having appointed chaplains whose responsibilities promi
nently included the delivery of prayers at the beginning of
each daily session, thought that this practice was incon
sistent with the Establishment Clause. And since this
practice was well established and undoubtedly well
known, it seems equally clear that the state legislatures
that ratified the First Amendment had the same under
standing. In the case before us, the Court of Appeals
appeared to base its decision on one of the Establishment
Clause “tests” set out in the opinions of this Court, see 681
F. 3d, at 26, 30, but if there is any inconsistency between
any of those tests and the historic practice of legislative
prayer, the inconsistency calls into question the validity of
the test, not the historic practice.
Page 148 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 13
V
This brings me to my final point. I am troubled by the
message that some readers may take from the principal
dissent’s rhetoric and its highly imaginative hypotheticals.
For example, the principal dissent conjures up the image
of a litigant awaiting trial who is asked by the presiding
judge to rise for a Christian prayer, of an official at a
polling place who conveys the expectation that citizens
wishing to vote make the sign of the cross before casting
their ballots, and of an immigrant seeking naturalization
who is asked to bow her head and recite a Christian
prayer. Although I do not suggest that the implication is
intentional, I am concerned that at least some readers will
take these hypotheticals as a warning that this is where
today’s decision leads—to a country in which religious
minorities are denied the equal benefits of citizenship.
Nothing could be further from the truth. All that the
Court does today is to allow a town to follow a practice
that we have previously held is permissible for Congress
and state legislatures. In seeming to suggest otherwise,
the principal dissent goes far astray.
Page 149 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 1
Opinion of THOMAS, J.

_________________
No. 12–696
_________________

[May 5, 2014]
JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins as

to Part II, concurring in part and concurring in the
judgment.
Except for Part II–B, I join the opinion of the Court,
which faithfully applies Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U. S. 783
(1983). I write separately to reiterate my view that the
Establishment Clause is “best understood as a federalism
provision,” Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542
U. S. 1, 50 (2004) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment),
and to state my understanding of the proper “coercion”
analysis.
I
The Establishment Clause provides that “Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
U. S. Const., Amdt. 1. As I have explained before, the text
and history of the Clause “resis[t] incorporation” against
the States. Newdow, supra, at 45–46; see also Van Orden
v. Perry, 545 U. S. 677, 692–693 (2005) (THOMAS, J., con-
curring); Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U. S. 639, 677–
680 (2002) (same). If the Establishment Clause is not
incorporated, then it has no application here, where only
municipal action is at issue.
As an initial matter, the Clause probably prohibits
Congress from establishing a national religion. Cf. D.
Page 150 of 213

Drakeman, Church, State, and Original Intent 260–262

(2010). The text of the Clause also suggests that Congress
“could not interfere with state establishments, notwith-
standing any argument that could be made based on
Congress’ power under the Necessary and Proper Clause.”
Newdow, supra, at 50 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). The lan-
guage of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no
law”) “precisely tracked and inverted the exact wording” of
the Necessary and Proper Clause (“Congress shall have
power . . . to make all laws which shall be necessary and
proper . . . ”), which was the subject of fierce criticism by
Anti-Federalists at the time of ratification. A. Amar, The
Bill of Rights 39 (1998) (hereinafter Amar); see also Natel-
son, The Framing and Adoption of the Necessary and
Proper Clause, in The Origins of the Necessary and Proper
Clause 84, 94–96 (G. Lawson, G. Miller, R. Natelson,
& G. Seidman eds. 2010) (summarizing Anti-Federalist
claims that the Necessary and Proper Clause would ag-
grandize the powers of the Federal Government). That
choice of language—“Congress shall make no law”—
effectively denied Congress any power to regulate state
establishments.
Construing the Establishment Clause as a federalism
provision accords with the variety of church-state ar-
rangements that existed at the Founding. At least six
States had established churches in 1789. Amar 32–33.
New England States like Massachusetts, Connecticut, and
New Hampshire maintained local-rule establishments
whereby the majority in each town could select the minis-
ter and religious denomination (usually Congregational-
ism, or “Puritanism”). McConnell, Establishment and
Disestablishment at the Founding, Part I: Establishment of
Religion, 44 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2105, 2110 (2003); see
also L. Levy, The Establishment Clause: Religion and the
First Amendment 29–51 (1994) (hereinafter Levy). In the
South, Maryland, South Carolina, and Georgia eliminated
Page 151 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 3
their exclusive Anglican establishments following the

American Revolution and adopted general establishments,
which permitted taxation in support of all Christian
churches (or, as in South Carolina, all Protestant churches).
See Levy 52–58; Amar 32–33. Virginia, by contrast, had
recently abolished its official state establishment and
ended direct government funding of clergy after a legisla-
tive battle led by James Madison. See T. Buckley, Church
and State in Revolutionary Virginia, 1776–1787, pp. 155–
164 (1977). Other States—principally Rhode Island,
Pennsylvania, and Delaware, which were founded by
religious dissenters—had no history of formal establish-
ments at all, although they still maintained religious tests
for office. See McConnell, The Origins and Historical
Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion, 103 Harv.
L. Rev. 1409, 1425–1426, 1430 (1990).
The import of this history is that the relationship be-
tween church and state in the fledgling Republic was far
from settled at the time of ratification. See Muñoz, The
Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause and the
Impossibility of Its Incorporation, 8 U. Pa. J. Constitu-
tional L. 585, 605 (2006). Although the remaining state
establishments were ultimately dismantled—Massachusetts,
the last State to disestablish, would do so in 1833, see Levy
42—that outcome was far from assured when the Bill of
Rights was ratified in 1791. That lack of consensus sug-
gests that the First Amendment was simply agnostic on
the subject of state establishments; the decision to estab-
lish or disestablish religion was reserved to the States.
Amar 41.
The Federalist logic of the original Establishment
Clause poses a special barrier to its mechanical incorpora-
tion against the States through the Fourteenth Amend-
ment. See id., at 33. Unlike the Free Exercise Clause,
which “plainly protects individuals against congressional
interference with the right to exercise their religion,” the
Page 152 of 213

Establishment Clause “does not purport to protect indi-

vidual rights.” Newdow, 542 U. S., at 50 (opinion of
THOMAS, J.). Instead, the States are the particular benefi-
ciaries of the Clause. Incorporation therefore gives rise to
a paradoxical result: Applying the Clause against the
States eliminates their right to establish a religion free
from federal interference, thereby “prohibit[ing] exactly
what the Establishment Clause protected.” Id., at 51; see
Amar 33–34.
Put differently, the structural reasons that counsel
against incorporating the Tenth Amendment also apply to
the Establishment Clause. Id., at 34. To my knowledge,
no court has ever suggested that the Tenth Amendment,
which “reserve[s] to the States” powers not delegated to
the Federal Government, could or should be applied
against the States. To incorporate that limitation would
be to divest the States of all powers not specifically dele-
gated to them, thereby inverting the original import of the
Amendment. Incorporating the Establishment Clause has
precisely the same effect.
The most cogent argument in favor of incorporation may
be that, by the time of Reconstruction, the framers of the
Fourteenth Amendment had come to reinterpret the Es-
tablishment Clause (notwithstanding its Federalist ori-
gins) as expressing an individual right. On this question,
historical evidence from the 1860’s is mixed. Congressmen
who catalogued the personal rights protected by the First
Amendment commonly referred to speech, press, petition,
and assembly, but not to a personal right of nonestablish-
ment; instead, they spoke only of “ ‘free exercise’ ” or
“ ‘freedom of conscience.’ ” Amar 253, and 385, n. 91 (col-
lecting sources). There may be reason to think these lists
were abbreviated, and silence on the issue is not disposi-
tive. See Lash, The Second Adoption of the Establishment
Clause: The Rise of the Nonestablishment Principle, 27
Ariz. St. L. J. 1085, 1141–1145 (1995); but cf. S. Smith,
Page 153 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 5
Foreordained Failure: The Quest for a Constitutional

Principle of Religious Freedom 50–52 (1995). Given the
textual and logical difficulties posed by incorporation,
however, there is no warrant for transforming the mean-
ing of the Establishment Clause without a firm historical
foundation. See Newdow, supra, at 51 (opinion of
THOMAS, J.). The burden of persuasion therefore rests
with those who claim that the Clause assumed a different
meaning upon adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.1
II
Even if the Establishment Clause were properly incor-
porated against the States, the municipal prayers at issue
in this case bear no resemblance to the coercive state
establishments that existed at the founding. “The coercion
that was a hallmark of historical establishments of reli-
gion was coercion of religious orthodoxy and of financial
support by force of law and threat of penalty.” Lee v.
Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, 640 (1992) (SCALIA, J., dissent-
——————
1 This Court has never squarely addressed these barriers to the in-
corporation of the Establishment Clause. When the issue was first

presented in Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U. S. 1 (1947), the
Court casually asserted that “the Fourteenth Amendment [has been]
interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state
action abridging religious freedom. There is every reason to give the
same application and broad interpretation to the ‘establishment of
religion’ clause.” Id., at 15 (footnote omitted). The cases the Court
cited in support of that proposition involved the Free Exercise Clause—
which had been incorporated seven years earlier, in Cantwell v. Con-
necticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303 (1940)—not the Establishment Clause. 330
U. S., at 15, n. 22 (collecting cases). Thus, in the space of a single
paragraph and a nonresponsive string citation, the Everson Court glibly
effected a sea change in constitutional law. The Court’s inattention to
these doctrinal questions might be explained, although not excused, by
the rise of popular conceptions about “separation of church and state”
as an “American” constitutional right. See generally P. Hamburger,
Separation of Church and State 454–463 (2002); see also id., at 391–
454 (discussing the role of nativist sentiment in the campaign for
“separation” as an American ideal).
Page 154 of 213

ing); see also Perry, 545 U. S., at 693–694 (THOMAS, J.,

concurring); Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 729 (2005)
(THOMAS, J., concurring); Newdow, supra, at 52 (opinion of
THOMAS, J.). In a typical case, attendance at the estab-
lished church was mandatory, and taxes were levied to
generate church revenue. McConnell, Establishment and
Disestablishment, at 2144–2146, 2152–2159. Dissenting
ministers were barred from preaching, and political partic-
ipation was limited to members of the established church.
Id., at 2161–2168, 2176–2180.
This is not to say that the state establishments in exist-
ence when the Bill of Rights was ratified were uniform.
As previously noted, establishments in the South were
typically governed through the state legislature or State
Constitution, while establishments in New England were
administered at the municipal level. See supra, at 2–3.
Notwithstanding these variations, both state and local
forms of establishment involved “actual legal coercion,”
Newdow, supra, at 52 (opinion of THOMAS, J.): They exer-
cised government power in order to exact financial support
of the church, compel religious observance, or control
religious doctrine.
None of these founding-era state establishments re-
mained at the time of Reconstruction. But even assuming
that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment recon-
ceived the nature of the Establishment Clause as a con-
straint on the States, nothing in the history of the inter-
vening period suggests a fundamental transformation in
their understanding of what constituted an establishment.
At a minimum, there is no support for the proposition that
the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment embraced
wholly modern notions that the Establishment Clause is
violated whenever the “reasonable observer” feels “subtle
pressure,” ante, at 18, 19, or perceives governmental “en-
dors[ement],” ante, at 5–6. For example, of the 37 States
in existence when the Fourteenth Amendment was rati-
Page 155 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 7
fied, 27 State Constitutions “contained an explicit refer-

ence to God in their preambles.” Calabresi & Agudo,
Individual Rights Under State Constitutions When the
Fourteenth Amendment Was Ratified in 1868: What
Rights Are Deeply Rooted in American History and Tradi-
tion?, 87 Tex. L. Rev. 7, 12, 37 (2008). In addition to the
preamble references, 30 State Constitutions contained
other references to the divine, using such phrases as “ ‘Al-
mighty God,’ ” “ ‘[O]ur Creator,’ ” and “ ‘Sovereign Ruler of
the Universe.’ ” Id., at 37, 38, 39, n. 104. Moreover, the
state constitutional provisions that prohibited religious
“comp[ulsion]” made clear that the relevant sort of com-
pulsion was legal in nature, of the same type that had
characterized founding-era establishments.2 These provi-
sions strongly suggest that, whatever nonestablishment
principles existed in 1868, they included no concern for the
finer sensibilities of the “reasonable observer.”
Thus, to the extent coercion is relevant to the Estab-
lishment Clause analysis, it is actual legal coercion that
counts—not the “subtle coercive pressures” allegedly felt
by respondents in this case, ante, at 9. The majority
properly concludes that “[o]ffense . . . does not equate to
——————
2 See, e.g., Del. Const., Art. I, §1 (1831) (“[N]o man shall, or ought to
be compelled to attend any religious worship, to contribute to the
erection or support of any place of worship, or to the maintenance of
any ministry, against his own free will and consent”); Me. Const., Art. I,
§3 (1820) (“[N]o one shall be hurt, molested or restrained in his person,
liberty or estate, for worshiping God in the manner and season most
agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience”); Mo. Const., Art. I, §10
(1865) (“[N]o person can be compelled to erect, support, or attend any
place of worship, or maintain any minister of the Gospel or teacher of
religion”); R. I. Const., Art. I, §3 (1842) (“[N]o man shall be compelled to
frequent or to support any religious worship, place, or ministry what-
ever, except in fulfillment of his own voluntary contract”); Vt. Const., Ch.
I, §3 (1777) (“[N]o man ought, or of right can be compelled to attend any
religious worship, or erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain
any minister, contrary to the dictates of his conscience”).
Page 156 of 213

coercion,” since “[a]dults often encounter speech they find

disagreeable[,] and an Establishment Clause violation is
not made out any time a person experiences a sense of
affront from the expression of contrary religious views in a
legislative forum.” Ante, at 21. I would simply add, in
light of the foregoing history of the Establishment Clause,
that “[p]eer pressure, unpleasant as it may be, is not
coercion” either. Newdow, 542 U. S., at 49 (opinion of
THOMAS, J.).
Page 157 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 1
BREYER, J., dissenting

_________________
No. 12–696
_________________

[May 5, 2014]
JUSTICE BREYER, dissenting.

As we all recognize, this is a “fact-sensitive” case. Ante,
at 19 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.); see also post, at 20
(KAGAN, J., dissenting); 681 F. 3d 20, 34 (CA2 2012) (ex-
plaining that the Court of Appeals’ holding follows from
the “totality of the circumstances”). The Court of Appeals
did not believe that the Constitution forbids legislative
prayers that incorporate content associated with a particu-
lar denomination. Id., at 28. Rather, the court’s holding
took that content into account simply because it indicated
that the town had not followed a sufficiently inclusive
“prayer-giver selection process.” Id., at 30. It also took
into account related “actions (and inactions) of prayer-
givers and town officials.” Ibid. Those actions and inac-
tions included (1) a selection process that led to the selec-
tion of “clergy almost exclusively from places of worship
located within the town’s borders,” despite the likelihood
that significant numbers of town residents were members
of congregations that gather just outside those borders; (2)
a failure to “infor[m] members of the general public that
volunteers” would be acceptable prayer givers; and (3) a
failure to “infor[m] prayer-givers that invocations were not
to be exploited as an effort to convert others to the partic-
ular faith of the invocational speaker, nor to disparage
any faith or belief different than that of the invoca-
Page 158 of 213

tional speaker.” Id., at 31–32 (internal quotation marks

omitted).
The Court of Appeals further emphasized what it was
not holding. It did not hold that “the town may not open
its public meetings with a prayer,” or that “any prayers
offered in this context must be blandly ‘nonsectarian.’ ”
Id., at 33. In essence, the Court of Appeals merely held
that the town must do more than it had previously done to
try to make its prayer practices inclusive of other faiths.
And it did not prescribe a single constitutionally required
method for doing so.
In my view, the Court of Appeals’ conclusion and its
reasoning are convincing. JUSTICE KAGAN’s dissent is
consistent with that view, and I join it. I also here empha-
size several factors that I believe underlie the conclusion
that, on the particular facts of this case, the town’s prayer
practice violated the Establishment Clause.
First, Greece is a predominantly Christian town, but it
is not exclusively so. A map of the town’s houses of wor-
ship introduced in the District Court shows many Chris-
tian churches within the town’s limits. It also shows a
Buddhist temple within the town and several Jewish
synagogues just outside its borders, in the adjacent city of
Rochester, New York. Id., at 24. Yet during the more
than 120 monthly meetings at which prayers were deliv-
ered during the record period (from 1999 to 2010), only
four prayers were delivered by non-Christians. And all of
these occurred in 2008, shortly after the plaintiffs began
complaining about the town’s Christian prayer practice
and nearly a decade after that practice had commenced.
See post, at 14, 21.
To be precise: During 2008, two prayers were delivered
by a Jewish layman, one by the chairman of a Baha’i
congregation, and one by a Wiccan priestess. The Jewish
and Wiccan prayer givers were invited only after they
reached out to the town to inquire about giving an invoca-
Page 159 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 3
tion. The town apparently invited the Baha’i chairman on

its own initiative. The inclusivity of the 2008 meetings,
which contrasts starkly with the exclusively single-
denomination prayers every year before and after, is
commendable. But the Court of Appeals reasonably de-
cided not to give controlling weight to that inclusivity, for it
arose only in response to the complaints that presaged this
litigation, and it did not continue into the following years.
Second, the town made no significant effort to inform
the area’s non-Christian houses of worship about the
possibility of delivering an opening prayer. See post, at
21. Beginning in 1999, when it instituted its practice of
opening its monthly board meetings with prayer, Greece
selected prayer givers as follows: Initially, the town’s
employees invited clergy from each religious organization
listed in a “Community Guide” published by the Greece
Chamber of Commerce. After that, the town kept a list of
clergy who had accepted invitations and reinvited those
clergy to give prayers at future meetings. From time to
time, the town supplemented this list in response to re-
quests from citizens and to new additions to the Commu-
nity Guide and a town newspaper called the Greece Post.
The plaintiffs do not argue that the town intentionally
discriminated against non-Christians when choosing
whom to invite, 681 F. 3d, at 26, and the town claims,
plausibly, that it would have allowed anyone who asked to
give an invocation to do so. Rather, the evident reasons
why the town consistently chose Christian prayer givers
are that the Buddhist and Jewish temples mentioned
above were not listed in the Community Guide or the
Greece Post and that the town limited its list of clergy
almost exclusively to representatives of houses of worship
situated within Greece’s town limits (again, the Buddhist
temple on the map was within those limits, but the syna-
gogues were just outside them). Id., at 24, 31.
Third, in this context, the fact that nearly all of the
Page 160 of 213

prayers given reflected a single denomination takes on

significance. That significance would have been the same
had all the prayers been Jewish, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or
of any other denomination. The significance is that, in a
context where religious minorities exist and where more
could easily have been done to include their participation,
the town chose to do nothing. It could, for example, have
posted its policy of permitting anyone to give an invocation
on its website, greeceny.gov, which provides dates and
times of upcoming town board meetings along with
minutes of prior meetings. It could have announced inclu-
sive policies at the beginning of its board meetings, just
before introducing the month’s prayer giver. It could have
provided information to those houses of worship of all
faiths that lie just outside its borders and include citizens
of Greece among their members. Given that the town
could easily have made these or similar efforts but chose
not to, the fact that all of the prayers (aside from the 2008
outliers) were given by adherents of a single religion re-
flects a lack of effort to include others. And that is what I
take to be a major point of JUSTICE KAGAN’s related dis-
cussion. See post, at 2–4, 9, 14–15, 21–23.
Fourth, the fact that the board meeting audience in-
cluded citizens with business to conduct also contributes
to the importance of making more of an effort to include
members of other denominations. It does not, however,
automatically change the nature of the meeting from one
where an opening prayer is permissible under the Estab-
lishment Clause to one where it is not. Cf. post, at 8–14,
16–17, 20.
Fifth, it is not normally government’s place to rewrite,
to parse, or to critique the language of particular prayers.
And it is always possible that members of one religious
group will find that prayers of other groups (or perhaps
even a moment of silence) are not compatible with their
faith. Despite this risk, the Constitution does not forbid
Page 161 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 5
opening prayers. But neither does the Constitution forbid

efforts to explain to those who give the prayers the nature
of the occasion and the audience.
The U. S. House of Representatives, for example, pro-
vides its guest chaplains with the following guidelines,
which are designed to encourage the sorts of prayer that
are consistent with the purpose of an invocation for a
government body in a religiously pluralistic Nation:
“The guest chaplain should keep in mind that the
House of Representatives is comprised of Members of
many different faith traditions.
“The length of the prayer should not exceed 150
words.
“The prayer must be free from personal political views
or partisan politics, from sectarian controversies, and
from any intimations pertaining to foreign or domestic
policy.” App. to Brief for Respondents 2a.
The town made no effort to promote a similarly inclusive
prayer practice here. See post, at 21–22.
As both the Court and JUSTICE KAGAN point out, we are
a Nation of many religions. Ante, at 10–11; post, at 1–2,
18. And the Constitution’s Religion Clauses seek to “pro-
tec[t] the Nation’s social fabric from religious conflict.”
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U. S. 639, 717 (2002)
(BREYER, J., dissenting). The question in this case is
whether the prayer practice of the town of Greece, by
doing too little to reflect the religious diversity of its citi-
zens, did too much, even if unintentionally, to promote the
“political division along religious lines” that “was one of
the principal evils against which the First Amendment
was intended to protect.” Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S.
602, 622 (1971).
In seeking an answer to that fact-sensitive question, “I
see no test-related substitute for the exercise of legal
judgment.” Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U. S. 677, 700 (2005)
Page 162 of 213

(BREYER, J., concurring in judgment). Having applied my

legal judgment to the relevant facts, I conclude, like
JUSTICE KAGAN, that the town of Greece failed to make
reasonable efforts to include prayer givers of minority
faiths, with the result that, although it is a community of
several faiths, its prayer givers were almost exclusively
persons of a single faith. Under these circumstances, I
would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals that
Greece’s prayer practice violated the Establishment
Clause.
I dissent from the Court’s decision to the contrary.
Page 163 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 1
KAGAN, J., dissenting

_________________
No. 12–696
_________________

[May 5, 2014]
JUSTICE KAGAN, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUS-

TICE BREYER, and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, dissenting.
For centuries now, people have come to this country
from every corner of the world to share in the blessing of
religious freedom. Our Constitution promises that they
may worship in their own way, without fear of penalty or
danger, and that in itself is a momentous offering. Yet our
Constitution makes a commitment still more remarkable—
that however those individuals worship, they will count
as full and equal American citizens. A Christian, a Jew,
a Muslim (and so forth)—each stands in the same re
lationship with her country, with her state and local
communities, and with every level and body of govern
ment. So that when each person performs the duties or
seeks the benefits of citizenship, she does so not as an
adherent to one or another religion, but simply as an
American.
I respectfully dissent from the Court’s opinion because I
think the Town of Greece’s prayer practices violate that
norm of religious equality—the breathtakingly generous
constitutional idea that our public institutions belong no
less to the Buddhist or Hindu than to the Methodist or
Episcopalian. I do not contend that principle translates
here into a bright separationist line. To the contrary, I
Page 164 of 213

agree with the Court’s decision in Marsh v. Chambers, 463

U. S. 783 (1983), upholding the Nebraska Legislature’s tra
dition of beginning each session with a chaplain’s prayer.
And I believe that pluralism and inclusion in a town hall
can satisfy the constitutional requirement of neutrality;
such a forum need not become a religion-free zone. But
still, the Town of Greece should lose this case. The prac
tice at issue here differs from the one sustained in Marsh
because Greece’s town meetings involve participation by
ordinary citizens, and the invocations given—directly to
those citizens—were predominantly sectarian in content.
Still more, Greece’s Board did nothing to recognize reli
gious diversity: In arranging for clergy members to open
each meeting, the Town never sought (except briefly when
this suit was filed) to involve, accommodate, or in any way
reach out to adherents of non-Christian religions. So
month in and month out for over a decade, prayers steeped
in only one faith, addressed toward members of the public,
commenced meetings to discuss local affairs and distribute
government benefits. In my view, that practice does not
square with the First Amendment’s promise that every
citizen, irrespective of her religion, owns an equal share in
her government.
I
To begin to see what has gone wrong in the Town of
Greece, consider several hypothetical scenarios in which
sectarian prayer—taken straight from this case’s record—
infuses governmental activities. None involves, as this
case does, a proceeding that could be characterized as a
legislative session, but they are useful to elaborate some
general principles. In each instance, assume (as was true
in Greece) that the invocation is given pursuant to gov
ernment policy and is representative of the prayers gener
ally offered in the designated setting:
Page 165 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 3
 You are a party in a case going to trial; let’s say you

have filed suit against the government for violating
one of your legal rights. The judge bangs his gavel
to call the court to order, asks a minister to come to
the front of the room, and instructs the 10 or so in
dividuals present to rise for an opening prayer.
The clergyman faces those in attendance and says:
“Lord, God of all creation, . . . . We acknowledge
the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.
We draw strength . . . from his resurrection at
Easter. Jesus Christ, who took away the sins of the
world, destroyed our death, through his dying and
in his rising, he has restored our life. Blessed are
you, who has raised up the Lord Jesus, you who
will raise us, in our turn, and put us by His
side. . . . Amen.” App. 88a–89a. The judge then
asks your lawyer to begin the trial.
 It’s election day, and you head over to your local

polling place to vote. As you and others wait to
give your names and receive your ballots, an elec
tion official asks everyone there to join him in
prayer. He says: “We pray this [day] for the guid
ance of the Holy Spirit as [we vote] . . . . Let’s just
say the Our Father together. ‘Our Father, who art
in Heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy King-
dom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in
Heaven. . . .’ ” Id., at 56a. And after he concludes,
he makes the sign of the cross, and appears to wait
expectantly for you and the other prospective vot
ers to do so too.
 You are an immigrant attending a naturalization

ceremony to finally become a citizen. The presiding
official tells you and your fellow applicants that be
fore administering the oath of allegiance, he would
Page 166 of 213

like a minister to pray for you and with you. The

pastor steps to the front of the room, asks everyone
to bow their heads, and recites: “[F]ather, son, and
Holy Spirit—it is with a due sense of reverence and
awe that we come before you [today] seeking your
blessing . . . . You are . . . a wise God, oh Lord, . . .
as evidenced even in the plan of redemption that is
fulfilled in Jesus Christ. We ask that you would
give freely and abundantly wisdom to one and to
all. . . in the name of the Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ, who lives with you and the Holy Spirit, one
God for ever and ever. Amen.” Id., at 99a–100a.
I would hold that the government officials responsible for

the above practices—that is, for prayer repeatedly invok
ing a single religion’s beliefs in these settings—crossed a
constitutional line. I have every confidence the Court
would agree. See ante, at 13 (ALITO, J., concurring). And
even Greece’s attorney conceded that something like the
first hypothetical (he was not asked about the others)
would violate the First Amendment. See Tr. of Oral Arg.
3–4. Why?
The reason, of course, has nothing to do with Christian
ity as such. This opinion is full of Christian prayers, be
cause those were the only invocations offered in the Town
of Greece. But if my hypotheticals involved the prayer of
some other religion, the outcome would be exactly the
same. Suppose, for example, that government officials in
a predominantly Jewish community asked a rabbi to begin
all public functions with a chanting of the Sh’ma and
V’ahavta. (“Hear O Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is
One. . . . Bind [these words] as a sign upon your hand; let
them be a symbol before your eyes; inscribe them on the
doorposts of your house, and on your gates.”) Or assume
officials in a mostly Muslim town requested a muezzin to
commence such functions, over and over again, with a
Page 167 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 5
recitation of the Adhan. (“God is greatest, God is greatest.

I bear witness that there is no deity but God. I bear wit
ness that Muhammed is the Messenger of God.”) In any
instance, the question would be why such government
sponsored prayer of a single religion goes beyond the
constitutional pale.
One glaring problem is that the government in all these
hypotheticals has aligned itself with, and placed its im
primatur on, a particular religious creed. “The clearest
command of the Establishment Clause,” this Court has
held, “is that one religious denomination cannot be offi-
cially preferred over another.” Larson v. Valente, 456 U. S.
228, 244 (1982). Justices have often differed about a
further issue: whether and how the Clause applies to
governmental policies favoring religion (of all kinds) over
non-religion. Compare, e.g., McCreary County v. American
Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U. S. 844, 860 (2005)
(“[T]he First Amendment mandates governmental neutral
ity between . . . religion and nonreligion”), with, e.g., id., at
885 (SCALIA, J., dissenting) (“[T]he Court’s oft repeated
assertion that the government cannot favor religious
practice [generally] is false”). But no one has disagreed
with this much:
“[O]ur constitutional tradition, from the Declaration
of Independence and the first inaugural address of
Washington . . . down to the present day, has . . . ruled
out of order government-sponsored endorsement of re
ligion . . . where the endorsement is sectarian, in the
sense of specifying details upon which men and women
who believe in a benevolent, omnipotent Creator
and Ruler of the world are known to differ (for exam
ple, the divinity of Christ).” Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S.
577, 641 (1992) (SCALIA, J., dissenting).
See also County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties
Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U. S. 573, 605
Page 168 of 213

(1989) (“Whatever else the Establishment Clause may

mean[,] . . . [it] means at the very least that government
may not demonstrate a preference for one particular sect
or creed (including a preference for Christianity over other
religions)”).1 By authorizing and overseeing prayers
associated with a single religion—to the exclusion of all
others—the government officials in my hypothetical
cases (whether federal, state, or local does not matter)
have violated that foundational principle. They have em-
barked on a course of religious favoritism anathema to the
First Amendment.
And making matters still worse: They have done so in a
place where individuals come to interact with, and partici
——————
1 That principle meant as much to the founders as it does today. The
demand for neutrality among religions is not a product of 21st century

“political correctness,” but of the 18th century view—rendered no less
wise by time—that, in George Washington’s words, “[r]eligious contro
versies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconciliable
hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.” Letter to
Edward Newenham (June 22, 1792), in 10 Papers of George Washing
ton: Presidential Series 493 (R. Haggard & M. Mastromarino eds. 2002)
(hereinafter PGW). In an age when almost no one in this country was
not a Christian of one kind or another, Washington consistently de
clined to use language or imagery associated only with that religion.
See Brief for Paul Finkelman et al. as Amici Curiae 15–19 (noting, for
example, that in revising his first inaugural address, Washington
deleted the phrase “the blessed Religion revealed in the word of God”
because it was understood to denote only Christianity). Thomas
Jefferson, who followed the same practice throughout his life, explained
that he omitted any reference to Jesus Christ in Virginia’s Bill for
Establishing Religious Freedom (a precursor to the Establishment
Clause) in order “to comprehend, within the mantle of [the law’s]
protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the
Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.” 1 Writings of Thomas
Jefferson 62 (P. Ford ed. 1892). And James Madison, who again used
only nonsectarian language in his writings and addresses, warned that
religious proclamations might, “if not strictly guarded,” express only
“the creed of the majority and a single sect.” Madison’s “Detached
Memoranda,” 3 Wm. & Mary Quarterly 534, 561 (1946).
Page 169 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 7
pate in, the institutions and processes of their govern

ment. A person goes to court, to the polls, to a naturaliza
tion ceremony—and a government official or his hand
picked minister asks her, as the first order of official
business, to stand and pray with others in a way conflict
ing with her own religious beliefs. Perhaps she feels suffi-
cient pressure to go along—to rise, bow her head, and join
in whatever others are saying: After all, she wants,
very badly, what the judge or poll worker or immigration
official has to offer. Or perhaps she is made of stronger
mettle, and she opts not to participate in what she does not
believe—indeed, what would, for her, be something like
blasphemy. She then must make known her dissent from
the common religious view, and place herself apart from
other citizens, as well as from the officials responsible for
the invocations. And so a civic function of some kind
brings religious differences to the fore: That public pro
ceeding becomes (whether intentionally or not) an instru
ment for dividing her from adherents to the community’s
majority religion, and for altering the very nature of her
relationship with her government.
That is not the country we are, because that is not what
our Constitution permits. Here, when a citizen stands
before her government, whether to perform a service or
request a benefit, her religious beliefs do not enter into the
picture. See Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Act for Establish
ing Religious Freedom (Oct. 31, 1785), in 5 The Founders’
Constitution 85 (P. Kurland & R. Lerner eds. 1987)
(“[O]pinion[s] in matters of religion . . . shall in no wise
diminish, enlarge, or affect [our] civil capacities”). The
government she faces favors no particular religion, either
by word or by deed. And that government, in its various
processes and proceedings, imposes no religious tests on
its citizens, sorts none of them by faith, and permits no
exclusion based on belief. When a person goes to court, a
polling place, or an immigration proceeding—I could go on:
Page 170 of 213

to a zoning agency, a parole board hearing, or the DMV—

government officials do not engage in sectarian worship,
nor do they ask her to do likewise. They all participate in
the business of government not as Christians, Jews, Mus
lims (and more), but only as Americans—none of them
different from any other for that civic purpose. Why not,
then, at a town meeting?
II
In both Greece’s and the majority’s view, everything I
have discussed is irrelevant here because this case in
volves “the tradition of legislative prayer outlined” in
Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U. S. 783. Ante, at 10. And
before I dispute the Town and Court, I want to give them
their due: They are right that, under Marsh, legislative
prayer has a distinctive constitutional warrant by virtue of
tradition. As the Court today describes, a long history,
stretching back to the first session of Congress (when
chaplains began to give prayers in both Chambers), “ha[s]
shown that prayer in this limited context could ‘coexis[t]
with the principles of disestablishment and religious
freedom.’ ” Ante, at 10 (quoting Marsh, 463 U. S., at 786).
Relying on that “unbroken” national tradition, Marsh
upheld (I think correctly) the Nebraska Legislature’s
practice of opening each day with a chaplain’s prayer as “a
tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among
the people of this country.” Id., at 792. And so I agree
with the majority that the issue here is “whether the
prayer practice in the Town of Greece fits within the tradi
tion long followed in Congress and the state legislatures.”
Ante, at 9.
Where I depart from the majority is in my reply to that
question. The town hall here is a kind of hybrid. Greece’s
Board indeed has legislative functions, as Congress and
state assemblies do—and that means some opening pray
ers are allowed there. But much as in my hypotheticals,
Page 171 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 9
the Board’s meetings are also occasions for ordinary citi

zens to engage with and petition their government, often
on highly individualized matters. That feature calls for
Board members to exercise special care to ensure that the
prayers offered are inclusive—that they respect each and
every member of the community as an equal citizen.2 But
the Board, and the clergy members it selected, made no
such effort. Instead, the prayers given in Greece, ad
dressed directly to the Town’s citizenry, were more sec
tarian, and less inclusive, than anything this Court sus
tained in Marsh. For those reasons, the prayer in Greece
departs from the legislative tradition that the majority
takes as its benchmark.
A
Start by comparing two pictures, drawn precisely from
reality. The first is of Nebraska’s (unicameral) Legisla
ture, as this Court and the state senators themselves
described it. The second is of town council meetings in
Greece, as revealed in this case’s record.
It is morning in Nebraska, and senators are beginning
to gather in the State’s legislative chamber: It is the be
ginning of the official workday, although senators may not
yet need to be on the floor. See Chambers v. Marsh, 504
F. Supp. 585, 590, and n. 12 (D. Neb. 1980); Lee, 505 U. S.,
at 597. The chaplain rises to give the daily invocation.
That prayer, as the senators emphasized when their case
came to this Court, is “directed only at the legislative
——————
2 Because JUSTICE ALITO questions this point, it bears repeating. I do
not remotely contend that “prayer is not allowed” at participatory
meetings of “local government legislative bodies”; nor is that the
“logical thrust” of any argument I make. Ante, at 7–8. Rather, what I
say throughout this opinion is that in this citizen-centered venue,
government officials must take steps to ensure—as none of Greece’s
Board members ever did—that opening prayers are inclusive of differ
ent faiths, rather than always identified with a single religion.
Page 172 of 213

membership, not at the public at large.” Brief for Peti

tioners in Marsh 30. Any members of the public who
happen to be in attendance—not very many at this early
hour—watch only from the upstairs visitors’ gallery. See
App. 72 in Marsh (senator’s testimony that “as a practical
matter the public usually is not there” during the prayer).
The longtime chaplain says something like the following
(the excerpt is from his own amicus brief supporting
Greece in this case): “O God, who has given all persons
talents and varying capacities, Thou dost only require of
us that we utilize Thy gifts to a maximum. In this Legis
lature to which Thou has entrusted special abilities and
opportunities, may each recognize his stewardship for the
people of the State.” Brief for Robert E. Palmer 9. The
chaplain is a Presbyterian minister, and “some of his
earlier prayers” explicitly invoked Christian beliefs, but he
“removed all references to Christ” after a single legislator
complained. Marsh, 463 U. S., at 793, n. 14; Brief for
Petitioners in Marsh 12. The chaplain also previously
invited other clergy members to give the invocation, in
cluding local rabbis. See ibid.
Now change the channel: It is evening in Greece, New
York, and the Supervisor of the Town Board calls its
monthly public meeting to order. Those meetings (so says
the Board itself) are “the most important part of Town
government.” See Town of Greece, Town Board, online at
http://greeceny.gov/planning/townboard (as visited May 2,
2014 and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). They
serve assorted functions, almost all actively involving
members of the public. The Board may swear in new
Town employees and hand out awards for civic accom
plishments; it always provides an opportunity (called a
Public Forum) for citizens to address local issues and ask
for improved services or new policies (for example, better
accommodations for the disabled or actions to ameliorate
traffic congestion, see Pl. Exhs. 718, 755, in No. 6:08–cv–
Page 173 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 11
6088 (WDNY)); and it usually hears debate on individ-

ual applications from residents and local businesses to
obtain special land-use permits, zoning variances, or other
licenses.
The Town Supervisor, Town Clerk, Chief of Police, and
four Board members sit at the front of the meeting room
on a raised dais. But the setting is intimate: There are
likely to be only 10 or so citizens in attendance. A few
may be children or teenagers, present to receive an award
or fulfill a high school civics requirement.
As the first order of business, the Town Supervisor
introduces a local Christian clergy member—denominated
the chaplain of the month—to lead the assembled persons
in prayer. The pastor steps up to a lectern (emblazoned
with the Town’s seal) at the front of the dais, and with his
back to the Town officials, he faces the citizens present.
He asks them all to stand and to “pray as we begin this
evening’s town meeting.” App. 134a. (He does not suggest
that anyone should feel free not to participate.) And he
says:
“The beauties of spring . . . are an expressive symbol
of the new life of the risen Christ. The Holy Spirit
was sent to the apostles at Pentecost so that they
would be courageous witnesses of the Good News to
different regions of the Mediterranean world and be
yond. The Holy Spirit continues to be the inspiration
and the source of strength and virtue, which we all
need in the world of today. And so . . . [w]e pray this
evening for the guidance of the Holy Spirit as the
Greece Town Board meets.” Ibid.
After the pastor concludes, Town officials behind him
make the sign of the cross, as do some members of the
audience, and everyone says “Amen.” See 681 F. 3d 20, 24
(CA2 2012). The Supervisor then announces the start of
the Public Forum, and a citizen stands up to complain
Page 174 of 213

about the Town’s contract with a cable company. See App.

in No. 10–3635 (CA2), p. A574.
B
Let’s count the ways in which these pictures diverge.
First, the governmental proceedings at which the prayers
occur differ significantly in nature and purpose. The
Nebraska Legislature’s floor sessions—like those of the
U. S. Congress and other state assemblies—are of, by, and
for elected lawmakers. Members of the public take no part
in those proceedings; any few who attend are spectators
only, watching from a high-up visitors’ gallery. (In that
respect, note that neither the Nebraska Legislature nor
the Congress calls for prayer when citizens themselves
participate in a hearing—say, by giving testimony rele
vant to a bill or nomination.) Greece’s town meetings, by
contrast, revolve around ordinary members of the commu
nity. Each and every aspect of those sessions provides
opportunities for Town residents to interact with public
officials. And the most important parts enable those
citizens to petition their government. In the Public Fo
rum, they urge (or oppose) changes in the Board’s policies
and priorities; and then, in what are essentially adjudica
tory hearings, they request the Board to grant (or deny)
applications for various permits, licenses, and zoning
variances. So the meetings, both by design and in opera
tion, allow citizens to actively participate in the Town’s
governance—sharing concerns, airing grievances, and
both shaping the community’s policies and seeking their
benefits.
Second (and following from what I just said), the pray
ers in these two settings have different audiences. In the
Nebraska Legislature, the chaplain spoke to, and only to,
the elected representatives. Nebraska’s senators were
adamant on that point in briefing Marsh, and the facts
fully supported them: As the senators stated, “[t]he activ
Page 175 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 13
ity is a matter of internal daily procedure directed only at

the legislative membership, not at [members of] the pub
lic.” Brief for Petitioners in Marsh 30; see Reply Brief for
Petitioners in Marsh 8 (“The [prayer] practice involves no
function or power of government vis-à-vis the Nebraska
citizenry, but merely concerns an internal decision of the
Nebraska Legislature as to the daily procedure by which it
conducts its own affairs”). The same is true in the U. S.
Congress and, I suspect, in every other state legislature.
See Brief for Members of Congress as Amici Curiae 6
(“Consistent with the fact that attending citizens are mere
passive observers, prayers in the House are delivered for
the Representatives themselves, not those citizens”). As
several Justices later noted (and the majority today
agrees, see ante, at 19–20),3 Marsh involved “government
officials invok[ing] spiritual inspiration entirely for their
own benefit without directing any religious message at the
citizens they lead.” Lee, 505 U. S., at 630, n. 8 (Souter, J.,
concurring).
The very opposite is true in Greece: Contrary to the
majority’s characterization, see ante, at 19–20, the prayers
there are directed squarely at the citizens. Remember
that the chaplain of the month stands with his back to the
Town Board; his real audience is the group he is facing—
the 10 or so members of the public, perhaps including
children. See supra, at 10. And he typically addresses
those people, as even the majority observes, as though he
is “directing [his] congregation.” Ante, at 21. He almost
always begins with some version of “Let us all pray to
gether.” See, e.g., App. 75a, 93a, 106a, 109a. Often, he
calls on everyone to stand and bow their heads, and he
——————
3 For ease of reference and to avoid confusion, I refer to JUSTICE
KENNEDY’s opinion as “the majority.” But the language I cite that
appears in Part II–B of that opinion is, in fact, only attributable to a
plurality of the Court.
Page 176 of 213

may ask them to recite a common prayer with him. See,

e.g., id., at 28a, 42a, 43a, 56a, 77a. He refers, constantly,
to a collective “we”—to “our” savior, for example, to the
presence of the Holy Spirit in “our” lives, or to “our brother
the Lord Jesus Christ.” See, e.g., id., at 32a, 45a, 47a, 69a,
71a. In essence, the chaplain leads, as the first part of a
town meeting, a highly intimate (albeit relatively brief)
prayer service, with the public serving as his congregation.
And third, the prayers themselves differ in their content
and character. Marsh characterized the prayers in the
Nebraska Legislature as “in the Judeo-Christian tradi
tion,” and stated, as a relevant (even if not dispositive)
part of its analysis, that the chaplain had removed all
explicitly Christian references at a senator’s request. 463
U. S., at 793, n. 14. And as the majority acknowledges,
see ante, at 12, Marsh hinged on the view that “that the
prayer opportunity ha[d] [not] been exploited to proselyt
ize or advance any one . . . faith or belief ”; had it been
otherwise, the Court would have reached a different deci
sion. 463 U. S., at 794–795.
But no one can fairly read the prayers from Greece’s
Town meetings as anything other than explicitly Chris
tian—constantly and exclusively so. From the time Greece
established its prayer practice in 1999 until litigation
loomed nine years later, all of its monthly chaplains were
Christian clergy. And after a brief spell surrounding the
filing of this suit (when a Jewish layman, a Wiccan priest
ess, and a Baha’i minister appeared at meetings), the
Town resumed its practice of inviting only clergy from
neighboring Protestant and Catholic churches. See App.
129a–143a. About two-thirds of the prayers given over
this decade or so invoked “Jesus,” “Christ,” “Your Son,” or
“the Holy Spirit”; in the 18 months before the record
closed, 85% included those references. See generally id.,
at 27a–143a. Many prayers contained elaborations of
Christian doctrine or recitations of scripture. See, e.g., id.,
Page 177 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 15
at 129a (“And in the life and death, resurrection and

ascension of the Savior Jesus Christ, the full extent of
your kindness shown to the unworthy is forever demon
strated”); id., at 94a (“For unto us a child is born; unto us
a son is given. And the government shall be upon his
shoulder . . .”). And the prayers usually close with phrases
like “in the name of Jesus Christ” or “in the name of Your
son.” See, e.g., id., at 55a, 65a, 73a, 85a.
Still more, the prayers betray no understanding that the
American community is today, as it long has been, a rich
mosaic of religious faiths. See Braunfeld v. Brown, 366
U. S. 599, 606 (1961) (plurality opinion) (recognizing even
half a century ago that “we are a cosmopolitan nation
made up of people of almost every conceivable religious
preference”). The monthly chaplains appear almost al
ways to assume that everyone in the room is Christian
(and of a kind who has no objection to government
sponsored worship4). The Town itself has never urged its
chaplains to reach out to members of other faiths, or even
to recall that they might be present. And accordingly, few
chaplains have made any effort to be inclusive; none has
thought even to assure attending members of the public
that they need not participate in the prayer session.
Indeed, as the majority forthrightly recognizes, see ante,
at 17, when the plaintiffs here began to voice concern over
prayers that excluded some Town residents, one pastor
pointedly thanked the Board “[o]n behalf of all God-fearing
people” for holding fast, and another declared the objectors
“in the minority and . . . ignorant of the history of our
country.” App. 137a, 108a.
——————
4 Leaders of several Baptist and other Christian congregations have
explained to the Court that “many Christians believe . . . that their

freedom of conscience is violated when they are pressured to participate
in government prayer, because such acts of worship should only be
performed voluntarily.” Brief for Baptist Joint Committee for Religious
Liberty et al. as Amici Curiae 18.
Page 178 of 213

C
Those three differences, taken together, remove this
case from the protective ambit of Marsh and the history on
which it relied. To recap: Marsh upheld prayer addressed
to legislators alone, in a proceeding in which citizens had
no role—and even then, only when it did not “proselytize
or advance” any single religion. 463 U. S., at 794. It was
that legislative prayer practice (not every prayer in a body
exercising any legislative function) that the Court found
constitutional given its “unambiguous and unbroken
history.” Id., at 792. But that approved practice, as I have
shown, is not Greece’s. None of the history Marsh cited—
and none the majority details today—supports calling on
citizens to pray, in a manner consonant with only a single
religion’s beliefs, at a participatory public proceeding,
having both legislative and adjudicative components. Or
to use the majority’s phrase, no “history shows that th[is]
specific practice is permitted.” Ante, at 8. And so, contra
the majority, Greece’s prayers cannot simply ride on the
constitutional coattails of the legislative tradition Marsh
described. The Board’s practice must, in its own particu
lars, meet constitutional requirements.
And the guideposts for addressing that inquiry include
the principles of religious neutrality I discussed earlier.
See supra, at 4–8. The government (whether federal,
state, or local) may not favor, or align itself with, any
particular creed. And that is nowhere more true than
when officials and citizens come face to face in their
shared institutions of governance. In performing civic
functions and seeking civic benefits, each person of this
nation must experience a government that belongs to one
and all, irrespective of belief. And for its part, each gov
ernment must ensure that its participatory processes will
not classify those citizens by faith, or make relevant their
religious differences.
To decide how Greece fares on that score, think again
Page 179 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 17
about how its prayer practice works, meeting after meet

ing. The case, I think, has a fair bit in common with my
earlier hypotheticals. See supra, at 2–4, 7. Let’s say that
a Muslim citizen of Greece goes before the Board to share
her views on policy or request some permit. Maybe she
wants the Board to put up a traffic light at a dangerous
intersection; or maybe she needs a zoning variance to
build an addition on her home. But just before she gets to
say her piece, a minister deputized by the Town asks her
to pray “in the name of God’s only son Jesus Christ.” App.
99a. She must think—it is hardly paranoia, but only the
truth—that Christian worship has become entwined with
local governance. And now she faces a choice—to pray
alongside the majority as one of that group or somehow to
register her deeply felt difference. She is a strong person,
but that is no easy call—especially given that the room is
small and her every action (or inaction) will be noticed.
She does not wish to be rude to her neighbors, nor does
she wish to aggravate the Board members whom she will
soon be trying to persuade. And yet she does not want to
acknowledge Christ’s divinity, any more than many of her
neighbors would want to deny that tenet. So assume she
declines to participate with the others in the first act of
the meeting—or even, as the majority proposes, that she
stands up and leaves the room altogether, see ante, at 21.
At the least, she becomes a different kind of citizen, one
who will not join in the religious practice that the Town
Board has chosen as reflecting its own and the communi
ty’s most cherished beliefs. And she thus stands at a
remove, based solely on religion, from her fellow citizens
and her elected representatives.
Everything about that situation, I think, infringes the
First Amendment. (And of course, as I noted earlier, it
would do so no less if the Town’s clergy always used the
liturgy of some other religion. See supra, at 4–5.) That
the Town Board selects, month after month and year after
Page 180 of 213

year, prayergivers who will reliably speak in the voice of

Christianity, and so places itself behind a single creed.
That in offering those sectarian prayers, the Board’s cho
sen clergy members repeatedly call on individuals, prior to
participating in local governance, to join in a form of wor
ship that may be at odds with their own beliefs. That the
clergy thus put some residents to the unenviable choice of
either pretending to pray like the majority or declining to
join its communal activity, at the very moment of petition
ing their elected leaders. That the practice thus divides
the citizenry, creating one class that shares the Board’s
own evident religious beliefs and another (far smaller)
class that does not. And that the practice also alters a
dissenting citizen’s relationship with her government,
making her religious difference salient when she seeks
only to engage her elected representatives as would any
other citizen.
None of this means that Greece’s town hall must be
religion- or prayer-free. “[W]e are a religious people,”
Marsh observed, 463 U. S., at 792, and prayer draws some
warrant from tradition in a town hall, as well as in Con
gress or a state legislature, see supra, at 8–9. What the
circumstances here demand is the recognition that we are
a pluralistic people too. When citizens of all faiths come
to speak to each other and their elected representatives
in a legislative session, the government must take espe-
cial care to ensure that the prayers they hear will seek
to include, rather than serve to divide. No more is
required—but that much is crucial—to treat every citizen,
of whatever religion, as an equal participant in her
government.
And contrary to the majority’s (and JUSTICE ALITO’s)
view, see ante, at 13–14; ante, at 4–7, that is not difficult
to do. If the Town Board had let its chaplains know that
they should speak in nonsectarian terms, common to
diverse religious groups, then no one would have valid
Page 181 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 19
grounds for complaint. See Joyner v. Forsyth County, 653

F. 3d 341, 347 (CA4 2011) (Wilkinson, J.) (Such prayers
show that “those of different creeds are in the end kindred
spirits, united by a respect paid higher providence and by
a belief in the importance of religious faith”). Priests and
ministers, rabbis and imams give such invocations all the
time; there is no great mystery to the project. (And
providing that guidance would hardly have caused the
Board to run afoul of the idea that “[t]he First Amendment
is not a majority rule,” as the Court (headspinningly)
suggests, ante, at 14; what does that is the Board’s refusal
to reach out to members of minority religious groups.) Or
if the Board preferred, it might have invited clergy of
many faiths to serve as chaplains, as the majority notes
that Congress does. See ante, at 10–11. When one month
a clergy member refers to Jesus, and the next to Allah or
Jehovah—as the majority hopefully though counterfactu
ally suggests happened here, see ante, at 10–11, 15—the
government does not identify itself with one religion or
align itself with that faith’s citizens, and the effect of even
sectarian prayer is transformed. So Greece had multiple
ways of incorporating prayer into its town meetings—
reflecting all the ways that prayer (as most of us know
from daily life) can forge common bonds, rather than
divide. See also ante, at 4 (BREYER, J., dissenting).
But Greece could not do what it did: infuse a participa
tory government body with one (and only one) faith, so
that month in and month out, the citizens appearing
before it become partly defined by their creed—as those
who share, and those who do not, the community’s major-
ity religious belief. In this country, when citizens go before
the government, they go not as Christians or Muslims or
Jews (or what have you), but just as Americans (or here,
as Grecians). That is what it means to be an equal citizen,
irrespective of religion. And that is what the Town of
Greece precluded by so identifying itself with a single
Page 182 of 213

faith.
III
How, then, does the majority go so far astray, allowing
the Town of Greece to turn its assemblies for citizens into
a forum for Christian prayer? The answer does not lie in
first principles: I have no doubt that every member of this
Court believes as firmly as I that our institutions of gov
ernment belong equally to all, regardless of faith. Rather,
the error reflects two kinds of blindness. First, the major-
ity misapprehends the facts of this case, as distinct from
those characterizing traditional legislative prayer. And
second, the majority misjudges the essential meaning of
the religious worship in Greece’s town hall, along with its
capacity to exclude and divide.
The facts here matter to the constitutional issue; in-
deed, the majority itself acknowledges that the requisite
inquiry—a “fact-sensitive” one—turns on “the setting in
which the prayer arises and the audience to whom it is
directed.” Ante, at 19. But then the majority glides right
over those considerations—at least as they relate to the
Town of Greece. When the majority analyzes the “setting”
and “audience” for prayer, it focuses almost exclusively on
Congress and the Nebraska Legislature, see ante, at 6–8,
10–11, 15–16, 19–20; it does not stop to analyze how far
those factors differ in Greece’s meetings. The majority
thus gives short shrift to the gap—more like, the chasm—
between a legislative floor session involving only elected
officials and a town hall revolving around ordinary citi
zens. And similarly the majority neglects to consider how
the prayers in Greece are mostly addressed to members of
the public, rather than (as in the forums it discusses) to
the lawmakers. “The District Court in Marsh,” the major
ity expounds, “described the prayer exercise as ‘an inter
nal act’ directed at the Nebraska Legislature’s ‘own mem
bers.’ ” Ante, at 19 (quoting Chambers v. Marsh, 504
Page 183 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 21
F. Supp., at 588); see ante, at 20 (similarly noting that

Nebraska senators “invoke[d] spiritual inspiration entirely
for their own benefit” and that prayer in Congress is “reli
gious worship for national representatives” only). Well,
yes, so it is in Lincoln, and on Capitol Hill. But not in
Greece, where as I have described, the chaplain faces the
Town’s residents—with the Board watching from on
high—and calls on them to pray together. See supra, at
10, 12.
And of course—as the majority sidesteps as well—to
pray in the name of Jesus Christ. In addressing the sec
tarian content of these prayers, the majority again chang
es the subject, preferring to explain what happens in other
government bodies. The majority notes, for example, that
Congress “welcom[es] ministers of many creeds,” who
commonly speak of “values that count as universal,” ante,
at 11, 15; and in that context, the majority opines, the fact
“[t]hat a prayer is given in the name of Jesus, Allah, or
Jehovah . . . does not remove it from” Marsh’s protection,
see ante, at 15. But that case is not this one, as I have
shown, because in Greece only Christian clergy members
speak, and then mostly in the voice of their own religion;
no Allah or Jehovah ever is mentioned. See supra, at 13–
14. So all the majority can point to in the Town’s practice
is that the Board “maintains a policy of nondiscrimina
tion,” and “represent[s] that it would welcome a prayer by
any minister or layman who wishe[s] to give one.” Ante, at
17–18. But that representation has never been publicized;
nor has the Board (except for a few months surrounding
this suit’s filing) offered the chaplain’s role to any non-
Christian clergy or layman, in either Greece or its envi
rons; nor has the Board ever provided its chaplains with
guidance about reaching out to members of other faiths, as
most state legislatures and Congress do. See 732 F. Supp.
2d 195, 197–203 (WDNY 2010); National Conference of
State Legislatures, Inside the Legislative Process: Prayer
Page 184 of 213

Practices 5–145, 5–146 (2002); ante, at 5 (BREYER, J.,

dissenting). The majority thus errs in assimilating
the Board’s prayer practice to that of Congress or the Ne-
braska Legislature. Unlike those models, the Board is
determinedly—and relentlessly—noninclusive.5
And the month in, month out sectarianism the Board
chose for its meetings belies the majority’s refrain that the
prayers in Greece were “ceremonial” in nature. Ante, at
16, 19, 21, 23. Ceremonial references to the divine surely
abound: The majority is right that “the Pledge of Alle
giance, inaugural prayer, or the recitation of ‘God save the
United States and this honorable Court’ ” each fits the bill.
Ante, at 19. But prayers evoking “the saving sacrifice of
Jesus Christ on the cross,” “the plan of redemption that is
fulfilled in Jesus Christ,” “the life and death, resurrection
and ascension of the Savior Jesus Christ,” the workings of
the Holy Spirit, the events of Pentecost, and the belief that
God “has raised up the Lord Jesus” and “will raise us, in
our turn, and put us by His side”? See App. 56a, 88a–89a,
99a, 123a, 129a, 134a. No. These are statements of pro
found belief and deep meaning, subscribed to by many,
denied by some. They “speak of the depths of [one’s] life,
of the source of [one’s] being, of [one’s] ultimate concern, of
what [one] take[s] seriously without any reservation.” P.
——————
5 JUSTICE ALITO similarly falters in attempting to excuse the Town
Board’s constant sectarianism. His concurring opinion takes great

pains to show that the problem arose from a sort of bureaucratic glitch:
The Town’s clerks, he writes, merely “did a bad job in compiling the
list” of chaplains. Ante, at 6; see ante, at 1–3. Now I suppose one
question that account raises is why in over a decade, no member of the
Board noticed that the clerk’s list was producing prayers of only one
kind. But put that aside. Honest oversight or not, the problem re
mains: Every month for more than a decade, the Board aligned itself,
through its prayer practices, with a single religion. That the concurring
opinion thinks my objection to that is “really quite niggling,” ante, at 4,
says all there is to say about the difference between our respective
views.
Page 185 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 23
Tillich, The Shaking of the Foundations 57 (1948). If they

(and the central tenets of other religions) ever become
mere ceremony, this country will be a fundamentally
different—and, I think, poorer—place to live.
But just for that reason, the not-so-implicit message of
the majority’s opinion—“What’s the big deal, anyway?”—is
mistaken. The content of Greece’s prayers is a big deal, to
Christians and non-Christians alike. A person’s response
to the doctrine, language, and imagery contained in those
invocations reveals a core aspect of identity—who that
person is and how she faces the world. And the responses
of different individuals, in Greece and across this country,
of course vary. Contrary to the majority’s apparent view,
such sectarian prayers are not “part of our expressive
idiom” or “part of our heritage and tradition,” assuming
the word “our” refers to all Americans. Ante, at 19. They
express beliefs that are fundamental to some, foreign to
others—and because that is so they carry the ever-present
potential to both exclude and divide. The majority, I
think, assesses too lightly the significance of these reli
gious differences, and so fears too little the “religiously
based divisiveness that the Establishment Clause seeks to
avoid.” Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U. S. 677, 704 (2005)
(BREYER, J., concurring in judgment). I would treat more
seriously the multiplicity of Americans’ religious commit
ments, along with the challenge they can pose to the
project—the distinctively American project—of creating
one from the many, and governing all as united.
IV
In 1790, George Washington traveled to Newport, Rhode
Island, a longtime bastion of religious liberty and the
home of one of the first communities of American Jews. Among
the citizens he met there was Moses Seixas, one of that
congregation’s lay officials. The ensuing exchange be
tween the two conveys, as well as anything I know, the
Page 186 of 213

promise this country makes to members of every religion.

Seixas wrote first, welcoming Washington to Newport.
He spoke of “a deep sense of gratitude” for the new Ameri
can Government—“a Government, which to bigotry gives
no sanction, to persecution no assistance—but generously
affording to All liberty of conscience, and immunities of
Citizenship: deeming every one, of whatever Nation,
tongue, or language, equal parts of the great governmental
Machine.” Address from Newport Hebrew Congregation
(Aug. 17, 1790), in 6 PGW 286, n. 1 (M. Mastromarino ed.
1996). The first phrase there is the more poetic: a gov
ernment that to “bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution
no assistance.” But the second is actually the more star
tling and transformative: a government that, beyond not
aiding persecution, grants “immunities of citizenship” to
the Christian and the Jew alike, and makes them “equal
parts” of the whole country.
Washington responded the very next day. Like any
successful politician, he appreciated a great line when he
saw one—and knew to borrow it too. And so he repeated,
word for word, Seixas’s phrase about neither sanctioning
bigotry nor assisting persecution. But he no less embraced
the point Seixas had made about equality of citizenship.
“It is now no more,” Washington said, “that toleration is
spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of
people” to another, lesser one. For “[a]ll possess alike . . .
immunities of citizenship.” Letter to Newport Hebrew
Congregation (Aug. 18, 1790), in 6 PGW 285. That is
America’s promise in the First Amendment: full and equal
membership in the polity for members of every religious
group, assuming only that they, like anyone “who live[s]
under [the Government’s] protection[,] should demean
themselves as good citizens.” Ibid.
For me, that remarkable guarantee means at least this
much: When the citizens of this country approach their
government, they do so only as Americans, not as mem
Page 187 of 213

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 25
bers of one faith or another. And that means that even

in a partly legislative body, they should not confront
government-sponsored worship that divides them along
religious lines. I believe, for all the reasons I have given,
that the Town of Greece betrayed that promise. I there
fore respectfully dissent from the Court’s decision.
Page 188 of 213

Item No. 10-1
ACTION ITEM
July 17, 2019
FROM: Public Affairs & Legislation Committee

(Directors Dick, Thomas, McVicker)
Robert Hunter Staff Contact: Karl Seckel

General Manager
SUBJECT: Legislation Being Drafted by Congressman Mike Levin on Funding

Support for Brackish and Ocean Desalination Projects
Staff recommends the Board adopt a “support in concept” position for Congressman Levin’s
legislative language for funding support for brackish and ocean desalination projects while
waiting to see the final wording outcome of any legislation that moves forward, particularly
on the use of renewable energy.
Committee recommends (To be determined at Committee Meeting)
DETAILED REPORT
Congressman Mike Levin’s office has been working on a draft desalination-funding bill to
support both brackish and ocean desalination projects. The bill essentially provides an
increase in the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act funding
authorization for desalination project grants and attempts to provide sufficient funding for a
25% maximum contribution towards all existing desalination projects listed in the 2016 WIIN
Act, including the Doheny Project. The Congressman has also taken the lead for
developing language for the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill to provide $8.3M towards
the Doheny Project from a BUREC grant process.
Budgeted (Y/N): Y Budgeted amount: $0 Core  Choice __

Action item amount: $0 Line item:
Page 189 of 213

Page 2
The legislative strategy being undertaken is to provide sufficient funding for all of the WINN
projects to be able to receive funding and assuming this bill passes the House,
Congressman Levin wants to amend his bill into the Senate Feinstein/McSally/Gardner
WIIN Act Reauthorization Bill.
Potentially, eight projects noted in the WIIN Act, as well as other projects, could benefit from
the proposed bill. Support of the bill is consistent with our Federal Policy Principles. The
bill would:
 Reauthorize the WIIN Act desalination program at $260 million. This would provide
sufficient funding for a 25% federal cost share for the eight currently authorized WIIN
Act projects (including Doheny) as well as additional $100 million for new
desalination projects through FY 2027 given the anticipated interest in new projects
in future years (i.e., roughly half of the cost of the original set of authorized projects).
 The bill contains “soft” environmental prescriptions generally modeled on California’s
existing desalination requirements, but they are only covered in a general manner
and leaves environmental compliance up to the State where the project is located
and to Federal provisions.
 Initially, the language included a prioritization process that was based on “maximum”
use of renewable energy to power desalination projects. Under current law, Interior
is asked to give some preference to desalination projects that align with the four
factors below. Added in the attached bill is a fifth factor on renewable energy. Input
into the Congressman’s office has resulted in modification of the renewable energy
prioritization to also include greenhouse gas mitigation. The attached language
provides that projects shall be prioritized:
1. for the benefit of drought-stricken States and communities;
2. for the benefit of States that have authorized funding for research and
development of desalination technologies and projects;
3. that can reduce reliance on imported water supplies that have an impact on
species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.);
4. that demonstrably leverage the experience of international partners with
considerable expertise in desalination, such as the State of Israel; and
5. that use renewable energy to power and/or other greenhouse gas mitigation
measures to reduce the project's overall carbon footprint for desalination
facilities (assumes meaning ocean desalination).
Congressman Levin’s Office has reached out to ask if we would support the suggested
language. South Coast staff has indicated support for the language. Because the existing
language may be changed by the time it turns into legislation, MWDOC staff is suggesting a
“support in concept” at this time.
Attached is the draft language.
Page 190 of 213

Page 3
BOARD OPTIONS
Option #1
 The Board adopts a “support in concept” position for Congressman Levin’s
legislative language that provides funding support for brackish and ocean
desalination projects.
Fiscal Impact: None to MWDOC, but potentially helps fund projects within Orange
County or MET to help reduce the cost of projects to the local entities and improve
reliability within the MET system.
Business Analysis: The Congressman’s approach fits with MWDOC’s policy principles
in providing funding support for local projects.
Option #2
 Do not take a position at this time; allow the bill to be conferenced with the Senate
version before taking a position.
Fiscal Impact: None.
Business Analysis: We may miss an opportunity to act positively towards developing

a new source of funding for brackish or ocean desalination projects.
Option # 1
Page 191 of 213

[Discussion Draft]
[DISCUSSION DRAFT]
H. R. _______
116TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
To promote desalination project development and drought resilience, and for

other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. LEVIN of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to
the Committee on __________________
A BILL
To promote desalination project development and drought resilience,
and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. DESALINATION PROJECTS AUTHORIZATION.
4 Section 4(a) of the Water Desalination Act of 1996

5 (42 U.S.C. 10301 note; Public Law 104–298) is amended
6 by striking the second paragraph (1) (relating to projects)
7 and inserting the following:
8 ‘‘(2) PROJECTS.—
9 ‘‘(A) DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE DESALINA-
10 TION PROJECT. —In this paragraph, the term
Page 192 of 213

[Discussion Draft]
2
1 ‘eligible desalination project’ means any project
2 located in a Reclamation State that—
3 ‘‘(i) involves an ocean or brackish
4 water desalination facility—
5 ‘‘(I) constructed, operated, and
6 maintained by a State, Indian Tribe,
7 irrigation district, water district, or
8 other organization with water or
9 power delivery authority; or
10 ‘‘(II) sponsored or funded by any
11 State, department of a State, subdivi-
12 sion of a State, or public agency orga-
13 nized pursuant to State law, includ-
14 ing—
15 ‘‘(aa) direct sponsorship or
16 funding; or
17 ‘‘(bb) indirect sponsorship or
18 funding, such as by paying for
19 the water provided by the facility;
20 ‘‘(ii) provides a Federal benefit in ac-
21 cordance with the reclamation laws; and
22 ‘‘(iii) meets the following requirements
23 if it is an ocean desalination facility—
24 ‘‘(I) is consistent with state and
25 federal resource protection laws in-
Page 193 of 213

[Discussion Draft]
3
1 cluding the protection of marine pro-
2 tected areas;
3 ‘‘(II) utilizes a subsurface intake
4 or an intake that uses the best avail-
5 able site, design, technology, and miti-
6 gation measures to minimize the mor-
7 tality of all forms of marine life;
8 ‘‘(III) is designed to ensure that
9 the disposal of wastewaters including
10 brine from the desalination process
11 are not discharged to designated areas
12 of special biological significance;
13 ‘‘(IV) is designed and operated in
14 a manner that maintains indigenous
15 marine life and a healthy and diverse
16 marine community;
17 ‘‘(V) does not cause significant
18 unmitigated harm to aquatic life; and
19 ‘‘(VI) includes a construction and
20 operation plan designed to minimize
21 aesthetic, noise, and air quality im-
22 pacts.
23 ‘‘(B) FEDERAL SHARE.—Subject to the re-
24 quirements of this paragraph, the Secretary
25 may participate in an eligible desalination
Page 194 of 213

[Discussion Draft]
4
1 project in an amount equal to not more than 25
2 percent of the total cost of the eligible desalina-
3 tion project.
4 ‘‘(C) STATE ROLE. —Participation by the
5 Secretary in an eligible desalination project
6 under this paragraph shall not occur unless—
7 ‘‘(i)(I) the eligible desalination project
8 is included in a State-approved plan; or
9 ‘‘(II) the participation has been re-
10 quested by the Governor of the State in
11 which the eligible desalination project is lo-
12 cated;
13 ‘‘(ii) the State or local sponsor of the
14 eligible desalination project determines,
15 and the Secretary concurs, that—
16 ‘‘(I) the eligible desalination
17 project—
18 ‘‘(aa) is technically and fi-
19 nancially feasible;
20 ‘‘(bb) provides a Federal
21 benefit in accordance with the
22 reclamation laws; and
23 ‘‘(cc) is consistent with ap-
24 plicable state laws, state regula-
Page 195 of 213

[Discussion Draft]
5
1 tions, and State coastal zone
2 management plans;
3 ‘‘(II) sufficient non-Federal fund-
4 ing is available to complete the eligible
5 desalination project; and
6 ‘‘(III) the eligible desalination
7 project sponsors are financially sol-
8 vent; and
9 ‘‘(iii) the Secretary submits to Con-
10 gress a written notification of the deter-
11 minations under clause (ii) by not later
12 than 30 days after the date of the deter-
13 minations.
14 ‘‘(D) ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS. —In partici-
15 pating in an eligible desalination project u n d e r
16 this paragraph, the Secretary shall comply with
17 all applicable environmental laws, including the
18 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
19 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
20 ‘‘(E) INFORMATION. —In participating in
21 an eligible desalination project under this sub-
22 section, the Secretary—
23 ‘‘(i) may rely on reports prepared by
24 the sponsor of the eligible desalination
25 project, including feasibility or equivalent
Page 196 of 213

[Discussion Draft]
6
1 studies, environmental analyses, and other
2 pertinent reports and analyses; but
3 ‘‘(ii) shall retain responsibility for
4 making the independent determinations de-
5 scribed in subparagraph (C).
6 ‘‘(F) FUNDING. —
7 ‘‘(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA-
8 TIONS. —There is authorized to be appro-

9 priated to carry out this paragraph
10 $260,000,000 for the period of fiscal
11 years 2020 through 2027.
12 ‘‘(ii) CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL INI-
13 TIALLY REQUIRED. —
14 ‘‘(I) IN GENERAL. —Each initial
15 award under this paragraph for
16 preconstruction or construction of an
17 eligible desalination project shall be
18 approved by an Act of Congress.
19 ‘‘(II) RECLAMATION REC-
20 OMMENDATIONS. —The Commissioner

21 of Reclamation shall submit rec-
22 ommendations regarding the initial
23 award of preconstruction and con-
24 struction funding for consideration
25 under subclause (I) to—
Page 197 of 213

[Discussion Draft]
7
1 ‘‘(aa) the Committee on Ap-
2 propriations of the Senate;
3 ‘‘(bb) the Committee on En-
4 ergy and Natural Resources of
5 the Senate;
6 ‘‘(cc) the Committee on Ap-
7 propriations of the House of Rep-
8 resentatives; and
9 ‘‘(dd) the Committee on
10 Natural Resources of the House
11 of Representatives.
12 ‘‘(iii) SUBSEQUENT FUNDING
13 AWARDS. —After approval by Congress of

14 an initial award of preconstruction or con-
15 struction funding for an eligible desalina-
16 tion project under clause (ii), the Commis-
17 sioner of Reclamation may award addi-
18 tional preconstruction or construction
19 funding, respectively, for the eligible desali-
20 nation project without further congres-
21 sional approval.’’.
Page 198 of 213

[Discussion Draft]
8
1 SEC. 2. PRIORITIZATION FOR PROJECTS UTILIZING RE-
2 NEWABLE ENERGY.
3 Section 4 of the Water Desalination Act of 1996 (42

4 U.S.C. 10301 note; Public Law 104–298) is amended by
5 striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
6 ‘‘(c) PRIORITIZATION. —In carrying out demonstra-
7 tion and development activities under this section, the Sec-
8 retary and the Commissioner of Reclamation shall each
9 prioritize projects—
10 ‘‘(1) for the benefit of drought-stricken States
11 and communities;
12 ‘‘(2) for the benefit of States that have author-
13 ized funding for research and development of desali-
14 nation technologies and projects;
15 ‘‘(3) that can reduce reliance on imported water
16 supplies that have an impact on species listed under
17 the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
18 1531 et seq.);
19 ‘‘(4) that demonstrably leverage the experience
20 of international partners with considerable expertise
21 in desalination, such as the State of Israel; and
22 ‘‘(5) that use renewable energy to power and/or other
greenhouse gas mitigation measures to reduce the
project’s overall carbon footprint for desalination
facilities.’’.
Page 199 of 213

Item No. 11
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
OF STAFF ACTIVITIES
JULY 2019
MWDOC MWDOC held its Member Agency Managers’ meeting at its office in Fountain
Agencies Valley on June 20, 2019.
Managers
Meeting In attendance were: Ron Krause – Brea, Lisa Ohlund & Jeff Smyth – EOCWD,
Mark Sprague – Fountain Valley, Cel Pasillas – Garden Grove, Ken Vecchiarelli –
Golden State WC, Brian Ragland – Huntington Beach, Paul Weghorst – IRWD,
Mike Markus & John Kennedy – OCWD, Rick Hurtado – Orange, Rick Shintaku –
South Coast WD, Marc Marcantonio – Yorba Linda WD, Lawrence Brotman – San
Clemente, Matt Brown - Moulton Niguel WD, Don Bunts – Santa Margarita WD,
Cody Nicolae – Garden Grove
Staff in attendance were: R. Hunter, K. Seckel, H. De La Torre, M. Baum-Haley,

K. Hubbard, K. Hostert, J. Berg, D. Micalizzi, C. Busslinger, H. Baez,
H. Chumpitazi, C. Lingad
Discussion Items:
 IT Fraud
 AWIA Update and Contract
Information Items:
 California Water Fix Update
 WEROC Updates
Next meeting will tentatively be held July 18, 2019.
Meetings  Karl Seckel and Charles Busslinger met with Lisa Ohlund and Jeff Smyth
from EOCWD to discuss the OC-70 billing accuracy. The discussions are in
the process of being moved to an Ad Hoc meeting between MWDOC, MET
and EOCWD to try to expedite resolution of this and other long-standing
issues at the facility.
 MET and MWDOC staff met to discuss future OC demands that might be
supplied by MET from their Jensen Water Treatment Plant on the far West
side of the MET system. MET is considering the cost savings from down
rating the plant, but want to make sure they retain the operating flexibility in
their system to meet future demands. Further information will be shared.
 Karl Seckel and Charles Busslinger met with South Coast WD staff to advise
them of information contained in the Water Quality Integration White Papers.
South Coast WD and their consultants were aware of the issues in the White
Papers, but it was a good crosscheck to verify.
 Charles Busslinger met with MET Capital Improvement Engineers and Mesa
WD to help coordinate projects by both MET and Mesa WD in the same
vicinity. It appears all of the coordination issues will be resolved. The
schedules by both entities are compromised by the upcoming nesting season
restrictions by the Coastal Commission.
Page 200 of 213

General Manager’s July 2019 Report Page 2
MET ITEMS CRITICAL TO

ORANGE COUNTY
MET’s In comparison to last month, with the same Table A (1.34 MAF) and CRA (947
Water MAF) amounts, Article 21 water increased from 60 to 65 TAF resulting in a total
Supply supply of just under 2.4 MAF. The obligations and loses increased from 0.13 to 0.15
Conditions TAF, and the Member Agency Demand decreased from 1.44 to 1.37 TAF, resulting
in a overall current demand of 1.52 MAF, which is slighly less than last month’s
projection of 1.57 MAF.
Metropolitan continues to take actions to maximize storage of available supplies and
anticipates a net storage gain in 2019, with a possible record storage balance going
into 2020.
MET’s Water transactions through April were 122.9 TAF (9.3%) lower than budget and 3.1
Finance and TAF higher than the 5-year average. Since January, water transactions have been
Rate Issues trending below budget as a result of the wet winter. This is $124.2 million less than
the budget and $85.9 million less than water revenues through April of last year. The
annual water transactions were adjusted at the end of the third quarter to 1.46 MAF,
it is anticipated that transactions will remain on target.
Page 201 of 213

Colorado Federal Legislation Authorizing Drought Contingency Plan Implementation

River Issues Passes Congress
The seven Colorado River Basin States sent a letter to Congress on March 19, 2019,
asking for adoption of federal legislation that would direct the Secretary of the
Department of Interior to sign and implement without delay four agreements related
to the Upper and Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plans (DCP). On March 27,
2019, the Water and Power Subcommittee of the Senate Natural Resources
Committee held an oversight hearing on the DCP. This hearing was followed the
next day by the Water, Oceans and Wildlife Subcommittee of the House Natural
Resources Committee’s oversight hearing on the DCP. On April 10, 2019, the House
and Senate passed identical bills authorizing the DCP. The House version was
approved by the Senate on April 11 and signed by the President on April 16. The
Secretary of the Interior signed the DCP in May and it became effective at that time.
Imperial Irrigation District Files CEQA Petition Against Metropolitan

On April 16, the same day that the President signed the federal DCP legislation into
law, the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) filed a petition for writ of mandate under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in California Superior Court in
Los Angeles County against Metropolitan seeking to block implementation of the
Lower Basin DCP. Specifically, IID asks the Court to vacate Metropolitan’s
December 2018 and March 2019 approvals of the Lower Basin DCP, suspend any
actions related to furtherance of the Lower Basin DCP until Metropolitan has
“complied with all requirements of CEQA and all other applicable laws,” and seeks
an injunction restraining Metropolitan from taking any action in furtherance of the
Lower Basin DCP “pending full compliance with CEQA.” The petition was served
on Metropolitan on April 22, 2019, after which Metropolitan has sixty days to
respond to the petition and provide information related to the administrative record.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Issues April 24-Month Study

Based on predictions of the most probable inflow into Lake Powell, the Bureau of
Reclamation’s releases from Lake Powell to Lake Mead will shift to balancing
releases during the remainder of water year 2019. This operation is consistent with
the Upper Elevation Balancing Tier. Total releases from Lake Powell will increase
from the previously planned 8.23 MAF, and will most likely reach the maximum 9
MAF total release, depending on actual reservoir elevations during the remainder of
the year. As a result, there is essentially no risk of shortages in the Colorado River
Basin for 2020. The Bureau of Reclamation’s April 24-Month Study Most Probable
Inflow Scenario predicts similar releases will be made in 2020.
Bay California EcoRestore

Delta/State California EcoRestore was launched in 2015 by the California Natural Resources
Water Agency to accelerate the restoration of 30,000 acres of habitat across the Delta by
Project
2020. The initiative’s primary focus is coordinating state-led habitat restoration
Issues projects to accelerate on-the-ground results. In 2018, five restoration projects broke
ground, which will create new tidal wetlands, establish new riparian upland habitats
and address fish passage barriers. Many more restoration projects are in the planning
phase.
Page 202 of 213

Bay In an effort to communicate EcoRestore accomplishments, the Natural Resources

Delta/State Agency released a video on April 17 highlighting the benefits of the EcoRestore
Water projects. The video includes speakers from state agencies and stakeholders. Alison
Project Collins, Senior Resource Specialist in Bay-Delta Initiatives is one of the speakers in
Issues - the video. The video can be found at the following link:
continued
http://resources.ca.gov/ecorestore/2019/04/ecorestore-restoring-californias-great-
estuary-videoreleased/
South SMWD Trampas Canyon Recycled Water Reservoir

Orange
County Trampas Canyon Reservoir and Dam (Trampas Reservoir) is a seasonal recycled
Projects water storage reservoir, with a total capacity of 5,000 AF, of which 2,500 AF is
available to meet Santa Margarita Water District’s projected base recycled water
demands, and 2,500 AF to meet future water supply needs. When completed, the
Trampas Reservoir will allow SMWD to store recycled water in the winter and draw
on that water during the peak summer months.
The construction of the Trampas Canyon Recycled Water Seasonal Storage

Reservoir consists of three main components:
1) Trampas Canyon Dam (Dam)
2) Conveyance facilities to transport recycled water into and out of the
Reservoir (Pipelines)
3) Trampas Canyon Pump Station (Pump Station)
The construction of the facilities is being completed in three phases:
1) Preconstruction/Site Preparation for the Dam and Pump Station
Construction
2) Dam and Pipelines
3) Pump Station
PROJECT STATUS
Preconstruction/Site Preparation
Complete
Page 203 of 213

South Dam and Pipelines

Orange The Construction Contract was awarded in December 2017 and is approximately
County
42% complete.
Projects -
continued Pump Station
The 90% design of this facility was submitted by AECOM on May 20th for District
review and approval. The project will likely be available to start the construction
bidding process in August 2019. Completion of the construction is expected to be in
June 2020, about 2 months ahead of the Reservoir and Dam completion.
San Juan Watershed Project
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) public review period was closed for
comments on February 23, 2018. Ultimately twenty-one comment letters were
received with the major topics of concern being characterized as relating to:
 Steelhead trout migration including the provisions of fish passages
 Impacts on San Juan Creek Lagoon
 Aesthetics and impacts of the various structures that may be required as part
of the project on the surrounding neighborhoods
Sediment transport
The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Project has been completed and
public comments received. Some of these comments required additional technical
analysis to be performed. This work has been completed and the final document
is being reviewed by legal counsel for conformance to CEQA requirements. An
informational update on the project was scheduled for the June 2019 SMWD Board
meeting.
Other Information on South County Projects:
If any agencies would like to have updates included herein on any projects within
your service area, please email the updates to Karl Seckel at [email protected].
ENGINEERING & PLANNING

South MWDOC, IRWD, and Dudek have completed the initial draft study to determine if
Orange the existing IRWD South Orange County Interconnection capacity for providing
County emergency water to South Orange County can be expanded and/or extended beyond
Emergency its current time horizon of 2030.
Service Based on the SOC meeting held on April 11, 2019, a spin-off meeting was held with
Program
MWDOC, Dudek and operations staff from MNWD and South Coast WD. The
purpose was to involve the operators to determine the flexibility of the SOC agencies
to deal with variable flows coming from IRWD as outlined in the study. The flows
from IRWD to SOC are dependent on the internal demands within IRWD and will
vary from hour to hour and day to day. The discussions indicated that the SOC
agencies have considerable flexibility to deal with this situation. The operations
group further discussed the sharing of SCADA data among the agencies to have
actual flow signals as to what is going on. The operations group also discussed how
the system would be operated if the SCADA systems were out. Finally, the
Page 204 of 213

South operations group had several alternatives they thought should be researched by
Orange Dudek and MWDOC. Follow-up on these options will be pursued.
County
A future meeting with all SOC agencies will be scheduled over the next month or so
Emergency to continue the discussions on cost-sharing facilities and operations that will
Service ultimately involve negotiations directly between SOC Agencies and IRWD. These
Program -
discussions could also involve discussions and negotiations between SOC and other
continued groundwater producers as well. Information being developed by OCWD and
MNWD will be important to the process as well.
Strand Staff from MWDOC and IRWD met to discuss how to capture the benefits that can
Ranch be provided by the development of “extraordinary supplies” from the Strand Ranch
Project Project. The meeting was beneficial in understanding each other’s positions relative
to emergency use and drought protection. Additional work is required based on the
exchange of information and another meeting will be set.
Poseidon Rob Hunter, Karl Seckel and Directors Brett Barbre and Larry Dick attended the
Resources Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) meeting on renewal
of the NPDES Permit for the HB Desalination Project. At the June 14, 2019
SARWQCB meeting, the Regional Board staff provided an information item update
on the “Identified Need” for the Poseidon project. In evaluating whether the
proposed location is the “best site feasible”, the Ocean Plan directs the Regional
Board to evaluate, in part, if the identified need for desalinated water is consistent
with applicable water planning documents. In the case of the proposed Poseidon
project, the applicable water planning documents are Municipal Water District of
Orange County’s (MWDOC) 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the
OC Water Reliability Study, OCWD’s Long Term Facilities Plan and other OCWD
planning documents. There was a considerable range of views expressed at the
meeting. One of the reactions from the SARWQCB was that they did not believe
they could permit a project if it was not highly probable that the project would move
forward. The alternative position was noted that it is hard to agree ahead of time to
move forward with the project if the full extent of terms and conditions are unknown.
It is not clear what actions and follow-up will result from this meeting.
The Regional Board schedule for the permit is:
Draft Permit Will be discussed in a Fall Workshop
Final Permit Anticipated issuance by the end of the year
Assuming success, Poseidon would then seek its final permits from the California
Coastal Commission. The next meeting of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board will be held on August 2.
SMWD Santa Margarita Water District continues to focus on diversifying its water supply
Rubber portfolio for South Orange County residents, businesses, schools, and visitors. At
Dams their recent Board meeting on June 21, 2019, they approved a significant
Project (San Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and two Memorandums of Understanding for
Juan ocean desalinization projects.
Watershed The San Juan Watershed Project is being planned in three-phases and has the
Project) potential to develop an additional 4,010 to 8,240 acre-feet per year in addition to
making better use of other natural supplies from the San Juan Groundwater Basin.
Page 205 of 213

SMWD At this time, funding is only being developed for the Phase 1 project. With the
Rubber release of its EIR, the project may break ground in late 2020.
Dams
Project (San
Juan
Watershed
Project) -
continued
At the same meeting, SMWD also approved two non-binding Memorandums of

Understanding (MOU) for ocean water desalination. One is with Orange County
Water District, related to Poseidon Water in Huntington Beach; the other is with
Oceanus Power and Water at Camp Pendleton. The District is also following the
progress of the Doheny Desalination project led by South Coast Water District. At
this time, SMWD is seeking about 1,000 AF per year from ocean desalination
sources.
Finally, construction of Orange County's largest recycled water reservoir is on track
to be completed in the summer of 2020. SMWD is also making great progress
towards completion of the 5,000 AF Trampas Canyon Dam and Reservoir to help
them and other agencies increase the amount of recycled water available in the
summer periods.
Doheny South Coast WD released the Doheny Ocean Desalination Project Draft
Ocean Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on May 17, 2018 and the EIR public comment
Desalination period closed on August 6, 2018. Consultant GHD has finished the additional
Project technical studies needed to address the comments received. South Coast WD held a
hearing on June 27, 2019 to consider comments and subsequent approval of the final
EIR.
South Coast WD is still tracking its Grant award from the Bureau of Reclamation
‘Water SMART: Desalination Construction Projects under the WIIN Act’. They are
in line to receive $8.3 M in funding, however, the funding needs to be included in the
E&W Appropriations list of projects for which the Secretary of Interior intends to
award grants. Congressman Levin is acting as the lead office on this request in the
House.
Water MWDOC is continuing its work on water quality issues that could arise with
Quality and integration of water supply projects into existing water systems. The pH, alkalinity,
Other TOC, bromide, chloramine residual, and other water quality characteristics may vary
Integration among these water sources on a daily, monthly and seasonal basis. Planning needs to
Issues for account for the water quality and operational considerations or risk unintended
Water consequences. Our goal is to understand the issues prior to these projects going on-
Supply line. The White Papers prepared by our consultants will be released in the next
Projects in couple of weeks and a workshop will be held with our member agencies.
OC
Page 206 of 213

Phase 1 – MWDOC has initiated the Phase 1 “Investigation Phase” to develop a specification,
Investigation cost estimate and recommendations for development of a hydraulic model of the
Phase for a regional pipeline system in OC, including water quality modules. The Investigation
Hydraulic Phase includes developing scopes of work required for successful model
Model implementation and recommendations on software selection. Key aspects of the
Investigative Phase include meetings with our agencies and MET water quality staff.
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Coordination Ongoing: WEROC, with Michael Baker as the lead consultant, is facilitating 19
with WEROC agencies through the process of updating the Orange County Water and Wastewater
Member Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Update: The Hazard Mitigation Plan
Agencies was approved by California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES). Staff received
“required revisions” from FEMA (very common for a first submittal) and is working
with participating agencies to provide the additional information requested both
during a working lunch and through emails. A major area of concern in FEMA’s
review is their initial refusal to recognize our city partners within this plan. This
issue was identified in the 2012 update and we believe that we met the expectations
that were communicated to us at that time. Kelly Hubbard is working with the city
participants, the consultant, CalOES and FEMA to resolve this issue. The plan with
revisions and a letter addressing FEMA’s concern with the City Departments was
resubmitted to FEMA on May 1, 2019.
Ongoing: Kelly launched an effort to facilitate a joint RFP and contract with
participating WEROC member agencies to address the new requirements of the
America’s Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA). On October 23, 2018, Congress
signed into law the American Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) (S.3021, Law 115-
270). Per Section 2013 of Title II, the AWIA requires utilities to conduct a Risk and
Resilience Assessment (RRA) of their community water systems and develop a
corresponding Emergency Response Plan (ERP) by March 31, 2020 for systems
serving population of 100,000 or more. New actions:
 The RFP was posted to the MWDOC website and shared via Linkedin and
multiple social media websites on May 15, 2019. A mandatory Preproposal
Conference was hosted on June 4th with fourteen consultants in attendance.
Proposals were due on Monday, June 17th at 10 am. Staff received seven
proposals. A multi-agency proposal review committee met on June 19th. Staff
will be requesting approval of consultant selection at the MWDOC
Administration & Finance Board Committee Meeting on July 10, 2019.
 Staff hosted a Kick-Off meeting for participating agencies on June 12. The
meeting was to clarify the requirements of the legislation, the project phases
and deadlines, as well as expectations of WEROC, the Consultant and the
Participating Agency. Similar information was provided at the MWDOC
Member Agency Manager’s Meeting on June 20 as well.
 Karl Seckel and Kelly met with the Betty Burnett, General Manager, and Sean
Peacher, Safety and Emergency Manager, of SOCWA, on June 3rd. This is an
annual meeting with SOCWA as a funding agency to discuss the WEROC
budget, WEROC’s goals for the coming year and what efforts SOCWA is
Page 207 of 213

Coordination interested in. Kelly meets with each of the funding agencies for this purpose
with WEROC annually.
Member
Agencies –
continued
Training and Kelly attended the Diemer Treatment Plant Dam Tabletop Exercise on June 20,
Programs 2019. The exercise included MET’s Emergency Manager, Safety of Dams Manager,
and Diemer staff, as well as staff from OCFA, OC Sheriff’s, the City of Yorba
Linda and Yorba Linda Water District. The purpose of the exercise was to discuss
the 3 dams at the Diemer Plant, notification procedures, potential impacts of a
failure and response actions.
Kelly also attended the Initial Planning Meeting for the MET OC Member Agency
Tabletop Exercise scheduled for August. The three cities, WEROC and MET staff
discussed the scenario, attendees and other planning considerations.
Coordination Kelly attended the June OCEMO Exercise Design meeting in Laguna Beach. The
with the committee is planning a countywide exercise for March 2020.
County of
Ongoing: OC OA Alert and Warning Working Group is a new committee to
Orange
develop countywide public Alert and Warning policies, procedures and tools such as
request and approval forms. This will be a 6-month planning effort.
EOC Janine Schunk participated in the OA and MET radio tests and WebEOC tests. She
Readiness also facilitated the WEROC monthly radio test.
Janine and Kelly met with ETWD electrical and maintenance staff to do a test drill
of the Draft South EOC Generator Operations Guide. Staff worked through the
guide step by step to ensure it would clearly assist the EOC staff in turning on the
generator and operating it. ETWD staff gave excellent recommendations on how to
improve the draft guidance, including some suggested safety gear that will be added
on site.
Janine and Kelly refreshed the water supplies at the North EOC.
Coordination Ongoing: California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) proceedings regarding the
with Outside Impacts from De-Energization with a Focus on First Responders and Local
Agencies Government. MWDOC has received party status to these proceedings. Party Status
ensures that we receive all communications regarding the proceedings and that our
comments are included officially for consideration. Kelly Hubbard will provide a
staff report at the August Planning and Operations Committee Meeting.
WATER USE EFFICIENCY

Metropolitan On June 19, Rachel Davis attended Metropolitan’s Water Use Efficiency
Water District Workgroup meeting. Approximately 30 member agencies participated in the
of Southern meeting. Agenda items included:
California
(MET) Water  Introductions
Use Efficiency  May Metropolitan Board Presentation
Workgroup o Conservation Updates
Page 208 of 213

Metropolitan o Review of Water Savings from Metropolitan’s Turf Removal

Water District Program
of Southern o Preview of July Board Presentations
California  Moulton Niguel Water District Smart Timer Direct Install Program
(MET) Water Presentation
Use Efficiency  Metropolitan External Affairs Update
Workgroup -
 Beverly Hills Indoor Water Use/Waste and AMI
continued
 Future Meeting Items
The next Workgroup meeting is scheduled for July 18th at Metropolitan
North- On June 17, Rachel Waite attended the North-Central Orange County IRWM
Central Stakeholder meeting hosted by Orange County Public Works. Approximately 15
Orange stakeholders representing 10 agencies were present to discuss the top-ranked
County projects submitted under the Proposition 1 Call for Projects. Information was
Integrated provided regarding the ranking system and the specifics of the recommended top-
Regional ranked projects.
Water
Management
(IRWM)
Stakeholder
Meeting
California On June 25, Rachel Waite and Joe Berg attended the web-based CalWEP Research
Water and Evaluation Committee. Rachel presented the results of a water savings program
Efficiency evaluation that analyzed the effectiveness of many of MWDOC’s landscape
Partnership programs. Additional agenda items included:
(CalWEP)
 CalWEP Updates
Research and
Evaluation  Conservation Long-Term Framework Needs Assessment
Committee  Integration Plan with the Alliance for Water Efficiency Research and
Evaluation Committee
 Member Surveys
The next meeting is scheduled online for September 24, 2019.
South Orange On June 26, Rachel Waite, Joe Berg, and Charles Busslinger participated in the
County South Orange County IRWM Stakeholder meeting hosted by the County of Orange
IRWM at the Laguna Hills Community Center. Approximately 20 stakeholders representing
Stakeholder 12 agencies were present to discuss the top-ranked projects submitted under the
Meeting Proposition 1 Call for Projects. Information was provided regarding the ranking
system and the specifics of the recommended top-ranked projects. Rachel gave a
presentation on MWDOC’s top ranked project, which is one of the projects that has
been recommended for funding.
Page 209 of 213

Neutral Output On July 2, Joe Berg and Rachel Davis attended a NO-DES Demonstration hosted by
Discharge the Yorba Linda Water District. Approximately 45 staff from water agencies
Elimination throughout the county attended. ValveTech, Inc. preformed a distribution system
System (NO- flushing demonstration on a pipeline within YLWD’s yard. The NO-DES connects
DES) to the distribution system fire hydrants and circulates the water through a pump and
Demonstration
at Yorba Linda
filter system. This allows flushed water to be recovered and placed back into the
Water District distribution system, avoiding the traditional flushing of water into the street and the
associated negative perception by customers. YLWD is considering utilizing the
NO-DES to maintain water quality within its system.
PUBLIC/GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Member Public Affairs Staff:
Agency
 Facilitated and hosted a Public Affairs Workgroup meeting on June 27.
Relations
Guest speakers from CV Strategies presented on building trust with
ratepayers as agencies navigate through a Prop 218.
 Attended the San Clemente City Council meeting with the Wyland
Foundation and Director Schneider to present the City with a certificate of
recognition for their outstanding participation in the Wyland National
Mayor’s Challenge and Orange County breakaway competition.
 Attended Santa Margarita Water District Board meeting with Director
Thomas and Rob Hunter to present a certificate of recognition for their
support of the Girl Scouts Water Resources and Conservation Patch
Program
Governmental Affairs Staff:
 Provided an update on the Governor’s Budget
Community Public Affairs Staff:

Relations
 Facilitated a Ricki the Raindrop appearance, and hosted an information
booth at the Anaheim Public Utilities OC Green Expo on June 22.
 Attended the ACC-OC Summer Reception at the Irvine Ranch Water
District Duck Club with Director Bob McVicker
Education Public Affairs Staff:

 Participated in a two-part professional learning course for teachers focused
on implementing Environmental Principles & Concepts in the classroom.
 Worked with design contractor on initial design and concept development
for Ricki Raindrop Education Booklets
 Provided baseline student/presentation counts to member agencies
participating in MWDOC Water Education School Programs
 Collected 2019-2020 school program commitment numbers from member
agencies
 Provided 2019-2020 school program commitments to school program
contractors
Page 210 of 213

Education -  Provided approved list of middle schools from participating agencies to

continued Discovery Cube Orange County for the 2019-2020 school year
Media Public Affairs Staff:

Relations
 Met with reporters from KCAL/KCBS and KNBC.
Special Public Affairs Staff:

Projects
 Met with Water Use Efficiency staff to develop a marketing plan for the
Landscape Design Assistance Program.
 Participated in an OC Water Summit Committee meeting to wrap up and
review the 2019 Summit. President Barbre and Director Thomas also
attended.
 Worked with Metropolitan staff and MWDOC/Metropolitan Directors to
complete the 2019-2020 inspection trip schedule.
 Working with Assemblyman Steven Choi’s office to recognize MWDOC
Water Awareness Poster Contest winners.
 Completed several website updates.
 Launched the Xtreme Water Makeover Contest in partnership with Toro.
 Attended the Wyland Pre-Gala underwriting event.
 Provided the MWDOC logo to the Diemer plant to update conference room
materials.
 Provided Metropolitan MWDOC’s website redesign Key Performance
Indicators and information on password-protected pages as they continue
their website redesign process.
 Updated artwork for Water Use Efficiency Department’s turf removal signs
 Made calls for potential locations for Community Leaders Briefings in
Newport Beach and Anaheim/Orange.
 Staffed the WACO Planning meeting
 Staffed the ISDOC Quarterly Luncheon meeting
 Staffed the ISDOC Executive Committee meeting
 Invited panelists for an upcoming WACO meeting
 Invited Adrian Hightower from MWD to provide a short presentation on
the Solar Cup at the July WACO meeting
Legislative Governmental Affairs Staff:

Affairs
 Participated in the ACWA Region 10 State Legislative Committee pre-
meeting call
 Monitored the Natural Resources Committee, Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
Committee hearing where Director Barbre provided testimony
 Attended the ACWA State Legislative Committee meeting in Sacramento
 Met with Kathy Viatella and Rosie Thompson from the MWD Sacramento
office to discuss pending legislation
 Participated in the Southern California Water Coalition Legislative Task
Force
 Participated in the MWD Member Agency Legislative call
 Drafted AB 402 (Quirk) – Oppose Unless Amended letter
Page 211 of 213

Legislative  Drafted AB 1752 (Petrie-Norris) – Support letter

Affairs -  Drafted and circulated for signatories, a coalition letter for AB 1752 for
continued MWDOC member agencies
 Shared AB 1752 support coalition letter with MWD member agencies to
encourage support
 Met with Frank Prewoznik from Irvine Ranch Water District
 Worked with our database coordinator to provide contact lists for the
upcoming Community Leaders Briefings with Congressman Harley Rouda
and Congressman Lou Correa
 Met with Lana Haddad from MWD and Kathy Besser from IEUA to discuss
pending legislation
Page 212 of 213

ITEM NO. 12
INFORMATION CALENDAR
MWDOC GENERAL INFORMATION

ITEMS
MWDOC BOARD OF DIRECTORS
 Brett R. Barbre
 Larry D. Dick
 Bob McVicker
 Joan Finnegan
 Sat Tamaribuchi
 Jeffery M. Thomas
 Megan Yoo Schneider
action.sht\agendas\mwdocact.pac
Page 213 of 213

Bod Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bod Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bod Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REGULAR MEETING

OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

ITEMS RECEIVED TOO LATE TO BE AGENDIZED

ITEMS DISTRIBUTED TO THE BOARD LESS THAN 72 HOURS PRIOR TO MEETING

NEXT RESOLUTION NO. 2088

Recommendation: Approve as presented.

2. COMMITTEE MEETING REPORTS

Recommendation: Receive and file as presented.

Recommendation: Ratify and approve as presented.

c. Summary of Cash and Investment and Portfolio Master Summary Report

Recommendation: Receive and file as presented.

Recommendation: Receive and file as presented.

5. PRESSURE REGULATING VALVE REPLACEMENT PILOT PROGRAM

Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into professional

6. AWARD CONTRACT FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONER

Recommendation: Approve entering into the subject agreement for replacement of

7. AWARD OF CONSULTING CONTRACT FOR MEMBER AGENCY COMPLIANCE

8. MESA WATER DISTRICT’S REQUEST FOR CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS

Recommendation: Authorize contribution of $20,000 to Mesa Water towards

End Consent Calendar

9. POLICY DISCUSSION REGARDING CONDUCTING INVOCATIONS AT BOARD

Recommendation: Discuss and decide whether to conduct invocations at Board

10-1 LEGISLATION BEING DRAFTED BY CONGRESSMAN MIKE LEVIN ON

Recommendation: Adopt a “support in concept” position for Congressman Levin’s

INFORMATION CALENDAR (All matters under the Information Calendar will be

11. GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT, JULY 2019 (ORAL AND WRITTEN)

Recommendation: Receive and file report(s) as presented.

12. MWDOC GENERAL INFORMATION ITEMS

a. Board of Directors - Reports re: Conferences and Meetings

Recommendation: Receive and file as presented.

13. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING

MWDOC DIRECTORS STAFF PRESENT

Brett R. Barbre Robert Hunter, General Manager

Jose Vergara El Toro Water District

APPOINT A DIRECTOR TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM IN DIVISION 3 OR

MWDOC DIRECTORS STAFF

*Also MWDOC MET Directors

OTHER MWDOC MET DIRECTORS

Brooke Jones Yorba Linda Water District

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION/PUBLIC COMMENTS

No public comments were made.

No items were presented.

ITEMS DISTRIBUTED TO THE BOARD LESS THAN 72 HOURS PRIOR TO MEETING

No items were presented.

INPUT OR QUESTIONS ON MET ISSUES FROM THE MEMBER AGENCIES/MET

Director Ackerman highlighted California WaterFix activities.

Considerable discussion ensued regarding the California WaterFix activities

WATER SUPPLY CONDITIONS UPDATE

PRESENTATION BY BRENT YAMASAKI REGARDING MET’S OPERATING PLAN

CALIFORNIA WATERFIX ACTIVITIES UPDATE

MWD ITEMS CRITICAL TO ORANGE COUNTY

a. MET’s Water Supply Conditions

h. South County Projects

The information was received and filed.

METROPOLITAN (MET) BOARD AND COMMITTEE AGENDA DISCUSSION ITEMS

a. Summary regarding May MET Board Meetings

The information was received and filed.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:08 a.m.