In this episode of 21st Century Water, we sit down with Eric Johnson, Executive Director of the Fox River Water Reclamation District (FRWRD), to unpack a unique leadership journey and explore a forward-thinking approach to water management. Eric’s path to running a regional wastewater agency is anything but conventional. Starting in public service at age 19 while in college, he transitioned from political roles to township supervisor, then city manager, and eventually into the water sector. What stands out is how he’s brought a legal and administrative mindset into a highly technical domain, focusing on assembling expert teams rather than becoming the technical expert himself.
We dive into the scale and complexity of FRWRD’s operations—three plants serving over 200,000 residents across multiple counties, with a $24 million operating budget and up to $20 million in annual capital projects. Eric walks us through a strategic pivot the agency is undergoing: its first-ever facility master plan. This includes initiatives like implementing a digital twin, improving asset management, and exploring plant consolidation to drive efficiency.
We also talk about regionalization. Eric makes a strong case for consolidating smaller wastewater utilities into regional agencies to improve cost-effectiveness, compliance, and service quality. He cites examples from his own district and explains the political and institutional barriers to broader adoption, highlighting the need for leadership willing to set aside control for the greater good of the community.
Financially, FRWRD recently completed a rate study, aiming to keep costs fair and predictable while balancing regulatory pressures and infrastructure needs. Eric shares how the utility is pursuing alternative revenue streams, including water reuse and solar energy, to reduce the financial burden on ratepayers. He also emphasizes the importance of public communication, using scale, continuity, visibility, and plain language to help people understand the unseen but essential role wastewater infrastructure plays.
Operationally, FRWRD faces challenges with aging infrastructure, rising costs, and a tightening labor market. Eric outlines efforts to modernize the organization—from equipping staff with better technology to launching workforce development partnerships and emphasizing leadership training. His passion for building high-performing, collaborative teams is clear, and he sees talent development as central to his long-term vision.
Eric closes with reflections on legacy. For him, success means advancing regionalization, fostering innovation, and creating an environment where employees thrive—even if that means they eventually move on to bigger roles. He hopes FRWRD becomes known as a forward-thinking, mid-sized agency that others look to for leadership, innovation, and talent.
More:
Fox River Water Reclamation District: https://www.frwrd.com/
21st Century Water - Eric Johnson
Speakers: Mahesh Lunani & Eric Johnson
[Music Playing]
Voiceover (00:02):
Tremendous challenges and opportunities exist right now for our nation's water infrastructure. In this podcast, the industry's top leaders and innovative minds share their knowledge and insights for ensuring our water systems are operating safely and efficiently.
These discussions are designed to motivate and create vibrant 21st century water systems and the innovative workforce required to lead and operate them. This is 21st Century Water, with your host, Aquasight founder and CEO, Mahesh Lunani.
Mahesh Lunani (00:34):
Well, good morning, good afternoon, good evening. I am with Eric Johnson, Executive Director, Fox River Water Reclamation District. Eric oversees three treatment plants serving over 200,000 residents across Kane and Cook counties.
With a background in law and public service, he brings a modern approach to water management. I want to explore today his leadership journey, financial priorities, and how Fox River is preparing for the next century of service.
Welcome, Eric.
Eric Johnson (01:07):
Thank you for having me.
Mahesh Lunani (01:08):
Real pleasure. You have a unique background and actually some of the previous guests have similar background on public service and law. What led you to your path in water leadership?
Eric Johnson (01:20):
I would say my path has been non-traditional my entire career. I got my start in public service at 18, 19-years-old, while in college, decided to run for the county board in the town where my college was, went to Northern Illinois University, ended up winning a race that nobody thought I was going to win by nine votes.
So, at 19 when most people are worried about where's the next fraternity party, I was working on budgets, overseeing court systems, forest preserves, and really got to immerse myself in local government and public service. Really supplemented the political science, academic side with practical experience.
Found out I really enjoyed it. Now, being that young, when you're elected at a young age, everyone thinks they're going to go to Congress or Governor, that route. But as I moved through my career, just really liked the impact one could have on your local community.
While serving on the county board, I had a seatmate, she was the township supervisor. There was a vacancy on that board, she asked me to serve on it, so I was appointed. I served concurrently, following law school, unfortunately, she ended up passing away right when I was finishing law school.
I thought my career in public service would lead me to be a prosecutor. That was the route I was heading towards. But with her passing, some of the board members I had served with asked if I'd be willing to come and run that unit of government and decided, “Why not give that a try?”
And really liked finding efficiencies, improvements, did that for a number of years, which led to a larger township offering me an opportunity to come in as an appointed administrator. Following that, was able to go be a city manager in northern Illinois at Carpentersville, really enjoyed that time.
If you would've asked me at any of these steps, would I be here running a water agency? I would've said, “No, you're crazy. That's maybe not in the cards.” We had a water plant at Carpentersville but this opportunity presented itself and this board was in particular looking for a different approach to water management. They wanted someone who could build better community relationships.
The reality is you don't need to be the experts; you need to know how to manage experts and work with experts. So, my diverse background with law and running different units of government, so I applied for this, and was tasked with running now my fourth unit in Illinois.
Mahesh Lunani (03:38):
It's a crazy story.
Eric Johnson (03:40):
In a lot of ways, it is.
Mahesh Lunani (03:42):
Yeah. From being 19-years-old on the county board, then township, then running a city manager, you probably have a very diverse perspective, and I assume in this role, you probably are managing the biggest budget you've managed to date, or at least sizable enough to address challenges. So, it's fantastic because we need that level of modern thinking in the sector.
Tell me a little bit about the size of the infrastructure that you're managing and the residents you're serving just in treatment plans, so network you have, et cetera.
Eric Johnson (04:18):
So, FRWRD's a larger wastewater agency in Illinois. We have three wastewater treatment plants that we manage. But as you said, about 200,000 residents served in Kane and Cook counties in Illinois. Getting a little more in the weeds on the details, we have 422 manholes, 18, almost 19 miles of gravity sewer, about 12 miles of force main, 12 lift stations.
What really makes us unique in the partnership we have with our partner agencies is that they manage the collection system, in a lot of ways, the vast majority of the sewers. Communities we serve: Elgin, south Elgin, parts of unincorporated St. Charles, parts of Streamwood, parts of Bartlett, Hoffman Estates, we do wholesale agreements with the village of West Indie.
We have an agreement that dates back to the 70s with the Metropolitan Water District of Greater Cook County. So, we are trying to be one of the regional treatment areas in that north central part of Illinois.
Mahesh Lunani (05:16):
Right, it’s a clearly regional authority and that creates an immense complexity in how you manage all these partnerships that are trusting you, that you would collect all the wastewater and treat them and put it back into the receiving waters.
How big is your budget if you look at OPEX and CAPEX, and can you walk me through just what are the biggest drivers for your O&M costs at these plants, and the lift stations and the pipelines?
Eric Johnson (05:41):
So, our operating budget's about $24 million. Of that $24 million, it's roughly, I can break it down into thirds. About one third is personnel cost, the next third, commodity supplies and contractual services, and then the final third is maintenance expenses with keeping the equipment going and upgrades.
On the capital side, any given year, it fluctuates depending on the projects, but we've been averaging $10 to $20 million a year in additional capital projects on top of that.
Mahesh Lunani (06:12):
Where are you investing heavily from a capital point of view, and what are your priorities in the coming years?
Eric Johnson (06:19):
So, one of the big things when I came in with the team that we had here, and we had noticed that we hadn't done a facility master plan in the history of the district. We're a hundred-year-old district and the way that capital projects are continuing to increase in costs between inflation and everything that's going on, we really need to get a blueprint.
What makes the most sense? We have three plants; how can we find the most efficiencies? And so, this past year we launched a facility master plan. I call it facility master plan plus. It's not just buildings; it's building an asset management program.
Looking at doing a digital twin to find efficiencies and be able to do predictable outcomes for when something happens, we should do X. Looking at regionalization – I'm not a proponent of regionalization in all units of government, but I really think wastewater is an industry that makes a lot of sense.
The water industry, just the economy of savings that doing this as a regional asset versus having all the municipalities and a lot of smaller districts around us, I think there's savings with that. So, we're looking at that as part of the master plan.
And just determining what are the best alternatives. Are there ways to … can we consolidate maybe two of the plants into one, find some efficiencies that way? So, that's in terms of planning, I would say, we're investing heavily in that.
On top of that, we have just the regular capital projects, we've got to continue to meet regulation. We are currently in the process of doing a major electrical upgrade. Our plant, a lot of the stuff dates back to the 70s are our biggest plant.
From talking with engineers, talking with ComED, talking with the people who work on this, it's getting harder to find replacement equipment, and we don't have the redundancy needed in the plant. We lose power for an extended period of time, that's going to cause major problems.
On top of that, I would say one of the major issues for nutrient removal- it's phosphorus removal for our area. So, we've been investing in biological phosphorus removal where we're currently piloting an algae program to help with ammonia and phosphorus removal as a side stream process.
And then efficiencies. We can't always keep going back to the rate payers and asking for more funds. So, how can we save money? We've got two solar projects in the works to help reduce our electrical costs right now, but we're spending about a million and a half dollars on electricity. So, anything that we can knock that number down in savings year over year is a benefit to our community and rate payers.
Mahesh Lunani (08:42):
Eric, you're talking like an engineer, and it is quite amazing that obviously, what you said early on in the conversation, that you have to know how to rally the experts and march them towards some sort of a plan or vision, and I can clearly see that come through so far in the short conversation we had.
But what got me really interested is your topic of regionalization, and I remember about seven years ago, six major utility leaders and myself, we got together and said what is the direction of regionalization in this country when it comes to water waste utilities, and what are the various models of regionalization for a complete physical integration to a virtual integration?
And hearing from you, what you said that not all governments require regionalization, but this particular sector and you coming from an outsider making that comment is absolutely terrific and in alignment with what was created seven years ago with these utility leaders.
So, a little bit deeper about why you made the statement and what would be the trigger point that such a particular, structural change is better for America? And I know now I got a broader American question, but you certainly are the epicenter in terms of actually doing it or running it such a thing. Any perspective on that?
Eric Johnson (10:14):
So, coming from the background of having just run a city before coming here, the one thing I noticed is in hindsight that wastewater and sometimes water in general tends to be the last area of focus. Most of the utility is underground, it's unseen.
In my experience, with working with boards and commissions my entire adult life, they tend to like things that are very visible. Roads are crumbling, the residents complain, people like parks, people like above ground infrastructure more than underground.
I've tagged in some posts, and I jokingly say we're #aftertheflush, people don't care about it as long as when they flush their toilets, it doesn't come back. And they're not really thinking of the cost, the regulations of everything that goes into it following that.
If you look nationally, I think we have something like 18,000 wastewater treatment plants in this country, some of them serving very small populations. One of our neighboring communities has a population of under 3,000 residents yet they are running their own wastewater treatment plant.
And just the numbers, to me (I'm partially a numbers guy), we're treating per thousand gallons under $3. Their cost is over $11 because you have to spread those costs among the residents and everything's expensive. So, the more residents, the more area we serve, we can drive that cost down, and I think that's important.
I also think it's easier to focus on those things – when you're running a city, you have police, you have fire, you have regular public works, you have economic development, which are all competing for those dollars.
It's been one of the nice things about coming to a water utility, we have one mission, and our mission is to improve the infrastructure, put clean water back into the environment, and it makes sense, let us focus on that.
We have the laboratory, we have the expertise, we have the equipment, a lot of these municipalities and smaller units are sending everything out to private laboratories for testing. So, just by us having that knowledge and equipment, we are able to effectively assume and take over and treat at lower cost.
The biggest threshold to overcoming that is one, I think there's the, nobody wants to give up something. There is some autonomy that's given up, there's some nervousness by saying, “Well, if we go with you, we no longer control what or how we do it.” I think that can be balanced out.
I think there's ways, I think there's models that have shown and work, and we actually have two of them that have been in existence for well over 30 years with some of our wholesale partners, village of West Indie and MWRD, that we have a working model that can work.
As part of this, I think we've identified probably six entities that are close enough where it makes sense as a starting point. Do we have a model that can work? And I'm hoping that we can get one of them to jump off the cliff with us and show that this makes sense, this works and improve overall water environment for everyone.
On top of that, the regulatory agencies have expressed an interest to not have to monitor as many agencies. Every plant has its own regulatory paperwork and filing, and it's all the same engineering groups, it's all the same … really, at the end of the day, it's a small industry.
Do we need to be this spread out? It also is what makes it hard to get wholesale change in the industry, is that we are so diluted in decision-making that there's so many plants, there's so many people who get to say yay or nay.
That bringing that regionalization will allow, I think, for quicker and timelier changes in environment and regulatory upgrades because we can be dedicated to affecting a larger area. Now, instead of spreading the limited dollars over multiple agencies, like I think the state, the feds, everyone would get a bigger bang for their buck if they let us regionalize water.
Mahesh Lunani (13:57):
And it just seems like you're reading out the editorial we wrote seven, eight years ago, but you are actually living it. I mean, you are living it, and this is your point of view, which is fantastic. But at the end of the day, what you said absolutely hits right on the money that it comes down to control versus the cost and quality of the service.
And if you can get the control out, that mindset out, then it's a no brainer. It's just a pure business decision and what's best for the rate payers. Which actually brings me to my next question – you're dealing with so many communities, rates and financial planning is important, and you might deal with politics of the situation or just a public perception.
How do you deal with this and what's your rate increase plan or rate stability plan if you look out 3, 5, 10 years from now?
Eric Johnson (14:48):
So, in the last year, we conducted a rate study, the first one that we'd done in about 10 years. Obviously, costs for everything have gone up; labor, capital costs, inflation, it has impacted everything.
To me, it was important, having gotten my start on the elected side, really gave me the viewpoint of the officials who have to face the community in ways that staff don't. They're the ones who, when they're at the store or when they're with their neighbors, get an earful if the rates jump too high or things swing too wildly.
We went into it with the charge of specifically trying to keep rates fair and affordable on the residential side. Elgin, South Elgin, the area we serve is a very diverse community and we have everything from low-income housing to multimillion dollar homes. So, when you apply the rates, the laws say you can only apply one rate to everyone.
So, the millionaire who might not feel a $5 or $10 increase a month isn't the same as the person who might cause issues, someone who's on a fixed income or below the poverty line, that might affect their ability to put food on the table.
So, we're very proud of the fact that by our comparable communities, our billing is still in the bottom third of comparable communities. That's even after we had to do a rate adjustment this year, and of it, we've received some calls from people who really more of, “We see things went up, there's a little bit difference, can you explain it?”
We walk people through it and I think the general person understands. I don't think the average person understands how much regulation that we are under. We aren't doing things because we think they'd be fun. It's a lot of we have to meet … here's the new compliance limits for phosphorus, here's the ammonia limits, here's pick your nutrient, pick your issue, and we are forced to deal with what comes our way.
As part of that, rates are obviously the biggest driver of cost or revenue for us. We're also identifying ways to maybe try to generate alternative forms of revenue. We're looking at leachate treatment and how can we continue to receive that even with new PFAS limitations coming in, how do we keep that as a revenue source?
Water reuse, you look at the future of wastewater. Can we sell our gray water for industrial purposes? Whether it's cannabis growing sites, agricultural, data centers, there's a lot of entities which might want something that doesn't need to be treated up to the potable water standards, which of course, saves us money and treatment of chemical costs on a potential alternate for revenue source for the district.
And on top of that, people don't think about the Midwest as being water shortages the same way you hear about in the Southwest or other parts of the country. But you look, our deep wells and our aquifers are starting to run dry, people assume just because we have this giant lake a little bit to the east that, “Oh, we're going to have water forever,” but it's a finite resource, it needs to be managed properly. And water reuse in Illinois hasn't really been explored because we've been considered a water-rich state but now is the time.
FRWRD’s on the cutting edge of that. We are one of the founding members of the Illinois Water Reuse Association as part of the national trend, and our district engineer is actually the president this year. And we're trying to work on regulations with the state to find ways for our agencies to be able to use that water and not just put it back into the streams, lakes, rivers that we're putting it in.
Mahesh Lunani (18:05):
There's a lot from water reuse to many other deployments, especially regulatory driven improvements, et cetera. You mentioned a little bit that an average person doesn't know how much we are doing this for the purpose of meeting regulations, or even earlier in the conversation, most people don't care underground infrastructure until it actually creates a problem like the hashtag #aftertheflush.
In your case, your unique position where you're able to technically understand and explain, but at the same time, communicate to an average person that may not understand it. Can you share to the audience (and including myself, I would love to learn) how do you communicate the importance and the power of the infrastructure that you manage today that's not that clearly visible, but people still have to cut checks?
Eric Johnson (19:00):
So, I like to talk about in terms of size and scope. To me, that's given the first big number. In 2024, we treated 7.5 billion gallons of water, (billions) with a B. And I think that's a very hard number to conceptualize but it's constantly coming. The flow's there 24 hours a day.
And to kind of give that idea, you don't think about your water usage resides like you shower, you flush your toilet, you do your general usage, multiply that by all your neighbors, all your friends, all day, every day work and how much water that really comes in.
I love my engineers. I love working with them. They are smarter than me in so many ways, but they think and talk like engineers. And when you're talking to the general public, you really have to talk it in ways that make sense to them.
We run hundreds of tests and what are we testing for? Well, we want to make sure there's not too much ammonia in the water, we know that's dangerous. We want to make sure there's no mercury; we want to make sure here's what we're taking out. Why are we taking it out? Well, some of it, we know people understand cyanide, they might not understand phosphorus and just trying to make it much more conversational.
And to me, when I talk to people, I think is I transferred into this industry from other things. Even people I had worked with in the city side, police officers, firefighters, like, “Well, explain this to me.” And you get to talking with them, they're like, “Oh, I had no idea.” They just like most people; they assume that the water goes away and what's involved – it's a giant chemistry set, I like to say, out in the field.
And not wanting to throw any shade on the water people, the potable water side, it's a much more mechanical process. You pump it, you put the chemicals in it to make it safe to drink, and then you distribute it.
On the wastewater side, it's so much more, it's biological, and we don't know at any given time what might come in. Does something come in that kills off the bacteria we need to treat? So, in a lot of ways it's a reactive industry and you have to be on guard at all times for that.
But just trying to explain, and maybe in crude terms, how do you turn sh*t back in to water in a safe way? And I think embracing it and try to have fun with it. We invite people for tours as much as we can. I think our people are very proud of the work they do.
But just being upfront with, I think this industry in general has been over its time, out of sight, out of mind, and being willing to embrace and raise the profile. I think we have a great industry for social media. We have interesting things to take pictures of, videos of explain, and I really think that's one of my goals, is to raise that public profile of the process.
And you're seeing more industries do that just because we have an interesting…something changes every day, and there's just interesting things to look at. And I think people might not understand things in the weeds, but when they start seeing it, they realize how big of a process it actually is.
Mahesh Lunani (21:55):
So, I gather five things how you make it really simple to communicate. First, you communicate the magnitude, the 7.5 billion gallons. Second, you communicate the fact that it's continuous, there's no intermittent, it’s just happening all the time.
Eric Johnson (22:11):
You can't shut it off.
Mahesh Lunani (22:12):
Yeah, you can't shut it off. Third, you communicate the fact that it's a massive chemistry set of all the things that are happening, biological, chemical, reductions, et cetera. Fourth is letting them see to believe it because they cannot see underneath their homes, but they can actually see what's going on at the far end of the pipe.
And the last, I feel like you meet them where they are at instead of the engineers asking them to meet where they're at. By the way, I'm an engineer, so no disrespect. I'm part of that, the fraternity, but it sounds like these are the five elements of how you are getting this across.
Eric Johnson (22:54):
No, in a short way, and really, I don't like to use the term dumb it down, but talk to it in terms that people can understand. And I sit in the meetings with engineers, we're doing projects and they're laying things out, and I'm like, “Talk to me like I'm a lawyer, not an engineer. If I can't understand it because I need to explain it to the board why are we doing it.”
Our board members aren't engineers, the public's not engineers. If you can sell me on it in a way that I can sell the public and our board on it, then we've met the meeting of the minds. If everyone's looking back with blank, “What are you saying?” Or you get too deep into, “Oh, it's ex parts per trillion and we got to do this because of the sloping is not great.” It's like, “Are you trying to explain this to me in a way that I understand or are you just throwing the science at me knowing that I'm not going to get it?”
Mahesh Lunani (23:39):
Yeah. It's a really interesting point you mentioned, Eric, because the company that I have and am running, we have six different disciplines and all disciplines on standalone are strong on its own. But when you sit across the table with six different disciplines and everybody coming from their vantage point, it's like things flying all over, and how do you fuse that so everybody understands the other side of it which is the point you're making.
Since you got deep into operational topic, and I'm curious, and I don't want to put you in a spot, but what are the toughest operational challenges that your team or under your leadership you're solving through today?
Eric Johnson (24:19):
One of the biggest ones is that we have a plant that was built over a hundred years ago that over the past a hundred years, we've added processes to, we've added treatment streams to, we've added more regulatory burdens that have to be met. And we're constantly retrofitting or adding components or asking parts of the plant to do things that they weren't originally meant to do.
I give our operators, and I say this about our wastewater operators and maintenance team – they deal with whatever comes their way. We mentioned earlier like the water never stops, you don't have the benefit of, “Alright, let's pause this for a second and see how we can fix it and troubleshoot the best answer.” They're dealing with it in real time all day, every day. So, I give them as many kudos and thumbs up as I can, they're dealing with the reality of it.
Going back to the engineers, they design things that work in theory, but most projects, the engineers aren't looking at every component of every piece in the system. So, you put in X process that works in a vacuum, but does it cause bottlenecking, does it cause jams somewhere else, and then we deal with it (I should say they deal with it).
We also have lead times for replacement equipment have grown. Yes, we're past COVID, but supply chain issues still exist, the costs of everything continue to go up. So, if things break, what's the cost of fixing? What's the cost of replacement? What's the lead time? And also, needing once again, to keep everything running while something breaks.
A majority of your wastewater treatment plants are publicly owned. We're not Amazon where we have every part sitting on a shelf somewhere that we can pick up on a moment's notice. So, we're doing the best that we can to keep things running at any given time. I think that is a major one.
I also think we're fortunate we have a staff that is very mid-career, our operators and maintenance staff. We have some people on the end are approaching retirement, we have some new people, but the industry as a whole is going to face an issue of finding workers.
I look back before I got here, historically, we'd post an operator and maintenance position, you might get 20, 25 resumes of people who are looking to come into the field. We just hired some, we got less than 10 for two positions.
I don't think it's necessarily an industry that promotes itself well. I think it's a great industry. It is still one that whether you have a high school degree or an advanced engineering degree, there's a place for you in the water industry. But we need to get in front of high schoolers, trade schools, workforce development programs.
That's something we want to actively do with our community college in the area and say, “Hey, can we develop a workforce development pipeline for people in this industry?” We just know that there's going to be a greater need of people not just here at FRWRD, but universally, and let's get people excited about the industry.
Mahesh Lunani (27:10):
You talked about digital twin decision-making tools. What gets you excited and what technologies would you want to implement in the next two to four years?
Eric Johnson (27:19):
When I came here, we were not a very technologically forward-thinking organization. My first week, I didn't even have a webcam on my computer; our operations staff we're still using flip phones. I don't think that's necessarily outside the norm in this industry that we have an older mindset, we're slow to adapt.
But the future of this, AI is a very generic term. I don't think anyone really … you say AI, but it means a hundred things to a hundred different people. But how do we use it to be more predictive? Like we build models and that's where digital twins, AI might really show some efficiencies in the future.
We see flow coming in higher, how should we adjust the plan? Do we tie it in the SCADA so we get more automation so that these decisions are being run in real time and not necessarily needing an operator to physically run around and turn valves and do stuff. There's always going to be that human element to keep an eye on things, but I think we're an industry that's ripe for automation.
And when I'm talking AI, I'm doing more predictive or reactive, you can judge things in real time. Ammonia is starting to trend this way, phosphorus is trending this way, alright, we can increase this chemical or reduce this chemical. We'll find more efficiencies that we're not overdosing, over treating, which has a chemical cost.
We can also then model if we have this digital twin, the idea would be like, if we do this to this plant – like you can start playing with the numbers: what if we reduce this, how would it affect process downstream?
Allow us to do better estimation versus I think what's historically been done in this industry, like, “Well, let's turn this valve off and over the next two weeks, let's see how it affects in real time.” So, allow us to do better decision-making, ask better questions, and fine tune process without having to go out and actually turn valves and cross our fingers that doesn't mess things up too bad.
Mahesh Lunani (29:11):
Right. And absolutely, and it's very forward thinking. It sounds like it's something you want to implement in the coming years. So, you already-
Eric Johnson (29:19):
Yeah. And that's part of our master plan, is laying out the process to getting onto like building a digital twin. It's obviously a very expensive process, and we're not going to build it for the whole plant, all three plants at once. But where does it make sense? Where do we get the biggest bang for our buck to start heading down that pathway?
And a goal of ours has been we want to view utility of the future. I love our acronym, Fox River Water Reclamation District, our acronym is FRWRD. And it's really low hanging fruit. But we do want to be forward thinking, we want to be forward with technology, we want to be on the forefront of an industry that if you look a lot of places tends to be a little tired and out of step and not really thinking on how do we revolutionize the industry.
Mahesh Lunani (30:00):
Yeah. You absolutely have a great vision for the district and for FRWRD in general. So, I want to talk about this because you've had so many different government – not so many, but four different government roles. I'm curious, how do you compare with the role here today compared to the previous roles you had?
Eric Johnson (30:19):
So, I would say this one is different in that, like I said earlier, I'm able to focus on one thing. We are doing wastewater, various aspects within that community relations, working with our partnership agencies, but it allows me to do a little more of a deep dive, but it's the same skill sets in a lot of ways.
You're dealing with board relationships; you're dealing with community relationships. My most important thing is to bring the right team together, get the right people in the right positions who share the vision. And having run four different units, I'd say the ability to come into an organization and make change, set goals is a different skill set.
There are people who do a great job working at one place for 20, 30 years, and that's a very laudable thing. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but being able to come in and quickly assess, alright, what changes need to be made, bringing that outside vision.
I've been fortunate here, we've brought in some great employees, we've brought in engineers from the private sector, we've brought in people from other agencies. But under the common vision of do you want to be part of an agency who wants to move things forward quickly? I believe in a little more entrepreneurial model.
I would say look at the iPhone. If Apple waited until it was perfected before they released it, it would never be out. Now, we always have to keep public safety and health and those things in mind, but take a “fail quickly” approach. Government is slower in nature than the private sector for a lot of reasons- some good, some bad, but we can think a little more entrepreneurial, a little more innovative than other agencies.
And I tell people I'm not afraid to fail. Like we're not going to punish you because we're piloting this algae program. If it works, great, we might move forward. If it doesn't, we're not saying you're going to be fired because this idea you had didn't work.
It was measured, there was good reason, we got bored by it, and we try things and that's the environment I want to bring to this industry and not just, “We've always done it this way.” To me, that's my least favorite saying.
Mahesh Lunani (32:14):
We want to clone your leadership style and mindset a hundred other places – not clone you, but clone the leadership style. But you are right and in fact, I mentioned this in the past because I moved into this industry 10 years ago, but I worked in five other verticals in the past.
I always said if you look at the value chain of the wastewater of the water sector, there are 20, 30% of the value chain you don't want to take risks. But there are 60, 70% of the value chain, you can take the risk because it isn't impacting public health or environmental safety and so on, which is the point you're making, saying you can take risks of that remaining part.
And then the only thing is the leadership should be able to say what you said, which is, “It's okay if you fail, I'm not punishing you for that part of it.” So, it is something that I think more and more people are recognizing.
What is one or two initiatives that you're doing that you want to see come to life in the coming few years and saying, “This is absolutely the vision I had and I can see this happening, and I can see looking back, a year, two years, we did this.” Who would that be?
Eric Johnson (33:25):
So, the one I'm most passionate about is the regionalization effort. I think we need more agencies to be on that push, I think it's better for the entire industry. And to me, if I can get over the next year or two, one or two either municipalities or smaller wastewater districts to buy into this idea, and we can show it's a working model.
Here's exactly … in Illinois, at least the state laws are in place to allow for this type of thing. So, that is one of the hurdles that not everyone has, but we have the mechanism to make it work and let's show people how can it be cheaper for your residents? How can we roll this out? How do we get the right buy-in?
Some of the risks aren't even the municipalities, it's, I would say vendors and engineering firms or people who are worried that, oh, if X agency joins FRWRD, I do a lot of business with X agency and I'm going to lose that-
Mahesh Lunani (34:18):
Displaced.
Eric Johnson (34:20):
Yeah. You get those, you get people in the decision maker's ears, “Oh, that's a bad idea.” Well, maybe it's a bad idea because you're going to lose a little revenue, but we're big enough if we grow, we're going to need more engineering services, we're going to need more chemical services, we got to keep the big picture in mind with that. So, that's a big one for me.
The other one that I am extremely passionate about and it's not necessarily the water industry, but everywhere I've been, has been professional development of my staff from top-down investing in, everyone gets their technical training. So, the engineers get their continuing education and the operators get their continuing education. I like to invest in overall leadership growth.
We're taking our entire management team through EIQ training. How do we build better performing teams? How do we build better communication? How do we break down silos? How do we get the operators and the engineering staff to talk? Engineers can design a great system or process.
Alright, well, now before we do anything, I say, “Have you talked with operations and maintenance? Do we have the cleaning ports necessary? Have we talked about how it's going to affect their workload day-to-day? How is it going to affect the overall plant?” Make them discuss, get that buy-in.
I had heard years ago, a car mechanic explained the complaints about, “these engineers design cars and don't think about how hard it's going to be for the mechanic to get in and work on it.” So, I've always taken that with me.
How do the decisions that engineering department make or laboratory testing schedule, how does it affect the day-to-day operations of everyone in? So, really a lot more cross collaboration, a lot more, get everyone in the room, let's work out the bugs. And that there's not necessarily a right answer that there's got to be a give and take on all sides.
Mahesh Lunani (35:58):
Both regionalization effort and professional development. I mean, great topics and I'm excited to see you lead that.
Last question: what do you want your legacy to be? And perhaps it's the same two topics, but clearly, you are young, you've really evolving in a variety of different leadership style, skills, et cetera. What do you want, looking back 10 to 20 years from now, what do you want that legacy to be?
Eric Johnson (36:24):
To me, it is always leave it better than you found it. Did we move the needle forward? I would love to say we became a larger regional wastewater treatment plant. I can't sit here today saying that anyone's necessarily going to buy in on it, but did we try?
Is this a place that people want to work? I have said as we invest in professional development, we obviously make our employees more attractive to other agencies because they're better trained, they have better licensure, they've come up through a system that works. I'm very much okay with that.
I know there's some people who view like, “Oh, if you leave us, you're not loyal or you're not supportive of the organization.” We had two operators take new opportunities in the last couple weeks, and I was thrilled. We're a big organization, but we're not too big. We only have about 55 employees.
So, there's not always a lot of vertical. If you want to increase your roles, if you want to move up, those opportunities don't always exist just because we're not so large that there's always that churn. But I want us to be synonymous with excellence.
If you hire a FRWRD employee, you're going to get a top-quality performer, you're going to get someone who brings in innovative idea, someone who's willing to challenge the system in positive ways, not just come in and break things for the sake of breaking it, but to leave that agency where it's somewhere where people want to work, people want to hire from. To me, that's the legacy.
And to have that place, I was very proud of the fact when I came in, I don't think employee morale was super high. We just did a bunch of hiring in the last couple weeks. Every person that was hired came from an internal referral, which to me says that's the type of place people want to work because you're not going to refer your friend to a place if it's not a great place.
They see that we're investing in the employees, they see that we're investing in solid pay and benefits, and that's our social contract. We're going to take care of you, you're going to take care of the community, and be a great place to work.
And if we're identified with that, while being forward-thinking, while being innovative – we've got a lot of pilot projects going, we're trying to work with organizations to publish papers. So, if we can be a thought leader, if we can be an agency that … we're not one of the major metros, we're not Denver …
But if we're the place that people are saying, “Oh, they're a group to look at and keep their eye on,” which I got from my collegiate experience going to Northern Illinois, which is a division one school, but it's not one of the powerhouse schools.
And so, when you're doing innovative things, people start paying attention to what you do and steal good ideas and steal people, to me, like we can be the mid-major of wastewater, who's that breakout agency?
Mahesh Lunani (38:54):
That's right. Absolutely. Absolutely. This is a thrilling conversation. I just want to sum up the conversation as I listened and learned from you today. Eric, you are fairly young … I think you may be the youngest of all the 40 episodes (chuckles) that we've done so far, and I don't know how old you are, I'm just saying.
But 19-years-old, you were on the county board, you now both from a legal background but super technical running this agency, a great aspiration in terms of how you engage customers and the mindset, driving regionalization, digital twin, new technology deployments, and more importantly, setting the organization up with workforce that could be better off as years to come.
So, I am excited, and I hope the audience really enjoyed learning from you and learning your experience and I look forward to connecting with you soon.
Eric Johnson (39:49):
No, it was great. Thank you for your time today.
[Music Playing]
Voiceover (39:51):
Join host and Aquasight founder and CEO Mahesh Lunani for another episode of 21st Century Water, produced by JAG in Detroit Podcasts.