Consumer hesitancy around using wastewater as a drinking water source has proved a stumbling block for water reuse projects. When water professionals technologically clean up wastewater, they begin the process of making it “forget” its previous interactions with humans. Current educational and communication approaches used by water utilities, however, “forget” to engage the sociality of tasting. To activate consumers’ sensory experiences—the thing most often seen as getting in the way adoption of water reuse projects—and to investigate how tasting can help bring to remembrance the other things communities value about water, we developed a multi-modal art–science public engagement exhibit, Tasting Water. First exhibited at Scottsdale’s 2021 Canal Convergence festival and again at the 2022 AZ Water Conference, Tasting Water engaged the public and water professionals in an open-ended invitation to rethink the way they use taste within a larger series of remembering practices in evaluating their water.

For millennia, societies have struggled to manage their water supplies. The twentieth and twenty-first centuries have been no different. As populations expand, especially in water-scarce regions, policymakers, scientists, technologists, and others have sought to efficiently use existing water sources and to identify new water sources. Since the late 1960s, a growing number of engineers have promoted the idea of wastewater reuse as a viable approach for taking water that would otherwise be “wasted” and keeping it within a municipality or region’s water system. In the United States, despite more than forty years of work in testing, validating, and promoting wastewater reuse as a viable and desirable approach to promoting water security, many inhabitants in potentially impacted regions remain hesitant or suspicious of these technologies—if they know about them at all. Grounded in historic experiences that reduced trust in scientific and governmental authorities, and in embodied knowledge of water quality gained through lifelong experiences with drinking water, these hesitancies have proved a stumbling block for a range of reuse projects in locations facing water insecurity.

The contemporary concept of water reuse depends on a suite of scientific practices and technologies. Developed during the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, these practices and technologies shifted how water is known, and who is privy to that knowing (c.f. Spackman 2020a; Garcier 2010). Century-long practices of evaluating water quality—here understood as a combination of potability (safe for human consumption) and palatability (tastiness)—through sensory cues such as taste, clarity, and temperature, gave way in late nineteenth and early twentieth century to instrumental measurements (Melosi 2008). As the twentieth century progressed, instrumental measurements and chemical assays came to define how legal systems categorized safety and danger in water (Spackman and Burlingame 2018). Water started to, as Ivan Illich argues, become a material of forgetfulness (Illich 1985). In the process, the legal systems, institutions, and individuals tasked with monitoring water quality have increasingly discounted the consuming public’s embodied experiences with water (Jackson 2011; Hoover 2017; Spackman 2020b). For some people, widely publicized cases such as the disregard for resident’s aesthetic and health concerns in Flint, Michigan (where the actual danger, lead, was imperceptible), map onto historically informed relationships of distrust (Pulido 2016). Socioeconomic marginalization or a lack of community resources can magnify this distrust. For impacted residents, “remembering” the role of sensory signals to detect environmental dangers enables active participation in their own self-protection. Critical scientific and technological advances such as the ability to detect imperceptible harms have, unfortunately, entered into a sensory politics that discounts consumers’ aesthetic experiences as personal preference.

Wastewater reuse depends not only on technological and scientific efforts but also on material and sociocultural practices of forgetting. When water professionals remediate (technologically clean up) wastewater, they begin the process of making it “forget” its previous interactions with humans. Each cleaning step is designed to remove materials on a macro to micro scale, from macro materials like toilet paper, to microorganisms such as bacteria, molecules, including pharmaceuticals, and even elements like lead. Subsequent discharge of the effluent (cleaned water) into an environmental buffer, like an aquifer or lake, enacts an additional, social step of “forgetfulness.” As the once-wastewater mingles with nature, it acquires socially and culturally held associations with purity (Rozin et al. 2015). This process of treating wastewater and returning it to the environment is called indirect potable reuse. Its political palatability rests in large part on the sociocultural forgetting that happens when effluent mingles with the natural environment. A similar process, so-called de facto reuse, also exists and is an ever-present reality for many utilities across the country (Rice et al. 2016). In de facto reuse, downstream municipal water utilities receive effluent from upstream wastewater treatment facilities. For example, many cities in Arizona receive Las Vegas’s effluent diluted with Colorado River water, and do so with little social outcry. The material and social practices of forgetting have played a large role in shaping how water many consumers think about (or ignore) their municipal water systems.

Until recently, Arizona legislators prohibited the direct reuse of recycled water for human consumption (Mosher and Vartanian 2018), ensuring people would keep receiving the forgetful water they already had. That legislative prohibition, enacted in 2001 in conjunction with a law allowing indirect potable reuse, seemed short-sighted by 2017. In response to lobbying by utilities, policy wonks, and others, the legislature took initial steps toward repealing the prohibition of direct reuse in 2018 but limited the repeal to demonstration facilities. As we write this article, the current legal landscape in Arizona may seem even more short-sighted: the US Secretary of the Interior declared a Tier 1 shortage on the Colorado River in 2021, and a Tier 2a shortage this year. In total, Arizona’s allocation of the Colorado River has been reduced by 512,000 foot acres (Fountain 2021) and the federal government is seeking a further reduction across the river system of two to four million acre-feet of water in 2023, with Arizona likely to bear the brunt of these cuts (“Tier 2 Shortage Declared for 2023—Basin States Fail to Reach Colorado River Usage Agreement” 2022). In this context, the water reuse option formerly considered “of last resort,” direct potable reuse (DPR) of wastewater has started to look much more appealing. In DPR, treated effluent undergoes an additional round of filtration and disinfection so that it can be served as drinking water without the time, loss, and energy consumption related to use of an environmental buffer. By allowing water providers to maintain control of the “wet water,” DPR offers a “new,”1 local source of water at a critical juncture in the state’s ability to support agricultural production and population growth (Scruggs, Pratesi, and Fleck 2020; Mosher and Vartanian 2018). In the process, it also opens the opportunity for communities to overlook or “forget” unsustainable water use trajectories (c.f. Ormerod 2017).

Arizona is not the first in the United States to consider moving to DPR as a technological fix to address water shortages. Water providers in Denver, Colorado, introduced a DPR demonstration plant in 1985 after more than fifteen years of testing advanced wastewater treatment technologies (Lauer, Rogers, and Ray 1985; Work, Rothberg, and Miller 1980). Soon after, San Diego began a decades-long effort to transition toward water recycling. It’s initial proposal in 1999 met strong resistance in the form of media coverage (“Toilet to Tap”!), consumer outrage, and more quiet resistance in the form of refusal (Ormerod and Scott 2013; Scruggs, Pratesi, and Fleck 2020). Efforts to transition to DPR in Toowoomba (“Poowoomba”!), Australia, met similar resistance (Kearnes, Motion, and Beckett 2014). Both of these early forays into DPR were shelved. Since then, the water industry has increased its focus on public education. However, it turns out that hesitancy, manifested as concerns and outright rejection, is not easily educated away (c.f. Charles 2018 for a comparative case). Whereas scientific knowledge and technological capacities have struggled to productively engage/encounter the embodied knowledge of the consumer, we see material and sociocultural practices of remembering as opening a path forward for wastewater reuse in Arizona.

Currently, disgust and hesitancy sit alongside drought and climate futures in water-scarce locales like Arizona. Indeed, Arizona is at a critical juncture in water policy and provisioning: although the 2001 law governing potable reuse technically remains in effect,2 a more recent amendment has opened the potential of changing the source of water for many people in Arizona (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 2017). As scholars have increasingly noted since the initial rejection of DPR in San Diego and Toowoomba, making DPR acceptable requires a different kind of work—at least at this juncture in time where one system of provisioning is threatened while another stands waiting eagerly on the sidelines to substitute in. We are curious: what new possibilities might open up if we draw inspiration from water’s ability to dissolve things, to change state, and flow in unexpected ways by shifting the conversation about municipal water’s qualities from one of like or dislike toward a more environmentally embedded interaction? Might we activate consumers’ sensory experiences—the thing most often seen as getting in the way of this transition despite the fact that very few people have actually tasted DPR water—to help us remember the other things we value about water? To productively spark such conversations, what new vocabularies, embodied actions, and other translational practices might be necessary?

To answer these questions, we here present findings from an art–science public engagement exhibit Tasting Water. Developed through a multistage process, Tasting Water was exhibited at Scottsdale’s Canal Convergence festival, held November 4–12, 2021, and again in a modified form at the 2022 Arizona Water conference held in Phoenix, Arizona, April 12–13, 2022. Tasting Water offered a material space for translating audience members’ individual and intersubjective tasting experiences into visible traces capable of drawing attention to the sensory “shadows” (Spackman 2020b)—the memories and lived experiences—shaping how people perceive their water.

We designed the exhibit with two aims: first, to draw awareness to the value of embodied experience in shaping relationships of trust between different realms of experts (e.g. professionals and consumers); and second, to explore a possible approach to translating consumers’ embodied experiences with drinking water into information that decision makers can use in planning for and managing sustainability transitions around drinking water infrastructures. We first highlight the theoretical and scientific background shaping the development of Tasting Water. We then outline the methodological approach used to design and build the exhibit. Finally, we discuss what translating tasting experiences from their ostensibly subjective nature to visibly intersubjective offers.

The idea that tasting experiences can serve as an entrance for changing behavior and enacting a form of selective remembering sits at the heart of taste education efforts. For example, Alice Water’s edible schoolyard project and its more popularized spin-offs (e.g., Jamie Oliver), are rooted in the belief that exposing children to the taste of fresh fruits and vegetables, as well as the labor that goes into making such foods, can shape a child’s likes and dislikes in ways that reverberate out into the economy (Waters 2008). Similarly, taste education efforts in France, such as strawberry tastings for school children, seek to undermine the ongoing industrialization of the French palate (Leysne 2006). Children are not the only ones targeted through taste education. As Brad Weiss points out, learning and teaching others to taste heritage pork has played a critical role in valorizing and protecting efforts to revitalize traditional hog production in North Carolina (Weiss 2018). On a parallel vein, efforts to educate coffee consumers into cultured ways of tasting helped bring the specialized coffee market into being, as well as tea markets (Goldstein 2011; Besky 2014).

Some of these education efforts are influenced by insights drawn from the world of sensory science (Heymann 2019). Examples include the jury terroir used by Comte cheese producers (Shields-Argèles 2019) and the beer or coffee flavor wheels that circulate through media channels or at points of distribution. These “sciences of subjectivity,” as Steven Shapin terms them, offer standardized ways of making aggregate knowledge from individuals’ subjective experiences of tasting or smelling (Shapin 2012). Indeed, insights gained through the practice of sensory science shape how food scientists design products, how marketers communicate about products, and in some cases, how regulators categorize products (Paxson 2019; Baur 2016; El-Sayed and Spackman 2022). In all of these cases, tasting is a form of remembering.

The ability to link past sensory experiences with current sensory experiences marks sensory expertise, even connoisseurship (Ulloa 2019; Muniesa and Trébuchet-Breitwiller 2010). We think of daily repetitive acts such as turning on a tap as producing a special kind of expertise: everyday expertise. Everyday experts are people who through repeated exposure and experience have gained a form of tacit, embodied expertise around the quality of municipal water in their homes or places of employment. While everyday expertise is uneven—varying according to age, health, and personal experience—we see it as both an important counterpart and addition to the officially sanctioned technical expertise held by those working in water production. Everyday expertise is an addition to technical expertise in its ability to capture data spread over vast systems. Indeed, as the recently retired director of Philadelphia Water’s Bureau of Laboratory Services has noted, the expertise held by consumers throughout a municipal water system is a critical, albeit under-utilized and sometimes derided, monitoring system that helps water providers detect and respond to problems that might otherwise go unnoticed (Burlingame 2021; Burlingame and Mackey 2007).

Everyday expertise additionally offers a counterpart to technical expertise. Aesthetic and embodied experiences do not happen in a vacuum. Rather, they mingle with individual and group memory to shape how people evaluate and engage the scientific and technical expertise of authorities (Charles 2018). Across the economic spectrum, people opt out of drinking municipal water due to perceived aesthetic qualities that are believed to indicate potentially pathogenic materials. These behaviors range from purchasing bottled water to installing in-home purification systems. When memory and embodied experience offer a different reading from that provided by authorities, as the experience in Flint, Michigan, potently demonstrates, authorities lose credibility in multiple locales. Everyday expertise can be protective. It can also come at a cost: it may erroneously identify a water as safe when the water is, in fact, dangerous; inversely, innocuous sensory cues may lead to suspicions about water that is, in fact, safe. Everyday expertise invites in experiences of remembering that legal and regulatory structures struggle to accommodate.

Direct potable reuse, however, raises a different challenge on the remembering/forgetting spectrum than that of other supplies. DPR water undergoes a series of “advanced” treatments until the wastewater has been stripped of chemicals, minerals, and pathogens as measured by instrumental and chemical modes of analysis. From a chemical standpoint, DPR water is pure water. Indeed, prior to serving DPR water, municipalities add back in minerals to obtain a desirable taste profile. This means that DPR water should offer essentially the “perfect” tasting water, at least for folks habituated to the relatively neutral taste of many filtered or bottled waters. Yet despite its chemical composition, many people are hesitant to even try DPR water. For water policymakers working to promote the long-term viability of municipal water systems, everyday expertise proves a double bind: many consumers opt out of the current municipal water system as a source for drinking water due to perceptible taste cues. Yet many are reluctant to engage with the possibility of adopting this water supply due to psychological, rather than physical, aspects of taste. Unfortunately, to date, most proponents of DPR have discounted consumers’ everyday expertise as a mode of evaluation (Manheim and Spackman 2022), instead overly relying on technical education to address concerns. This “deficit-model” approach that imagines education will change public opinion has largely failed (Morgan and Grant-Smith 2015). By overly focusing on the actual quality of the water, proponents of DPR miss attending to the role that community experiences and memories with water (culinary or otherwise) play in how open someone is to forgetting that DPR water was recently wastewater.

We see in this competing mixture of logics and ideals an opportunity for using tasting practices as a mode to inform decision making at the individual and institutional level. We draw on a recent turn toward multisensory design in art and education that hypothesizes the more sensory channels are activated in a learning environment, the more intensely learners will engage with content, resulting in higher information retention (Novak et al. 2020; Pursey and Lomas 2018). We further draw on a “making and doing” approach from Science and Technology Studies to co-engage municipal water producers and policymakers alongside consumers (Downey and Zuiderent-Jerek 2017). As with other efforts to use art to engage the public around controversial issues, we designed Tasting Water to invite personal reflection, and to spark curiosity about the ways that technologies function (Fraaije et al. 2022). These design approaches aimed to reach a wide audience; approximately 1,250 people of all ages participated over the festival period. We added to these public engagement goals the aim to upend familiar everyday experiences for consumers—as well as implicit producer assumptions about these experiences—by, as Voß and Guggenheim (2019) term it, making taste public.

Memory and social interactions shape how people react to the aesthetic qualities of water. As such, Tasting Water aimed to translate participants’ individual and social tasting experiences into visible traces. We hypothesized that making tasting experiences visible could inspire policymakers and utility leaders to turn attention to how taste is more than just an interaction of a molecular cue with a body. Liking plays a predominant role in consumer interactions with safe (but perhaps distasteful) municipal water. As such, we aimed to invite participants into reconsidering their own reactions to water. We wanted to inspire curiosity about the terroir-like origins of the tastes of local drinking waters, and to highlight for all participants that tasting happens in community.

To develop the Tasting Water exhibit, we used a mixed-methods approach. Our approach combined science and art, drawing on Spackman’s seven-plus years building critical disruptions (performative public engagement pieces that center and render strange sensory science practices), Manheim’s decade-plus working in collaborative design, and Barua’s five years working in media arts. To better understand what hopes and concerns consumers bring to tap water tasting, we conducted three user workshops over Zoom and in person, for a total of five workshops with fifteen people. ASU’s COVID-19 protocols governed how we conducted workshops. A subset of participants (five) were recruited from underserved neighborhoods via collaboration with a local community organization; four additional participants were recruited from advertisements posted at filtered water vending locations. We designed the workshops to build trust between participants, to activate participants’ sense of agency within the water system, and to playfully support curiosity and generate ideas (see  appendix for outline of flow of workshops).

Tasting water is hard. To address this challenge, we primed participants using mental imagination and physical tasting exercises before moving on to water tastings. Throughout the workshops, team members took notes, building out a set of water-tasting wheels (see Taste and Odor Wheel for Raw and Treated Drinking Water discussion below) that included texture, flavor, memory, and participant-generated categories. At the end of the first workshop, we shared the collected notes with participants. The second workshop built on insights from the first, walking participants through a step-by-step tasting process to co-create a collaborative water wheel. To help activate participants’ ability to complete this task, we asked them to “Imagine you’re trying to describe this water to a friend who lives somewhere far away. What do they need to know about this water?” Due to the difficulty many people have in naming sensations, we shared a list of words commonly used by water professionals to describe drinking water, with the inclusion of words we had heard participants use during workshop 1 and the first part of workshop 2. We then asked “What for you is missing from this list of words?” to elicit additional descriptors. Finally, we asked participants to imagine a water wheel of the future.

It can be easy to imagine futures that are overwhelming, or where we feel a lack of agency. To address this challenge, we described a future “where humans have managed to find some kind of balance with our environment” and as such, have adequate water. Drawing on insights from design exercises, we asked participants to situate their bodies in this future by imagining their own future thirst, how they might assuage it, and the aesthetic characteristics of that future water. After completing this exercise, we juxtaposed the water wheel of the future with the current wheel, and discussed how we might make this present wheel look more like the future one. We specifically asked, “What do you want to keep, what do you want to take away from this, and what is missing that you want to add?”

We used insights from the workshops conducted with consumers to develop a pilot of the core tasting activities we imagined using in the exhibit. Four Phoenix region water utility professionals involved in communications, outreach, and treatment participated in a trial of the tasting activities and provided feedback, which we used to further inform the design of the interactive tasting exhibit. Finally, we built a prototype of the exhibit and invited feedback on the exhibit experience from thirty-nine undergraduate students at Arizona State University.

### Exhibit Components

The exhibit space had two components: an external “orientation” space, and an internal, immersive “tasting” space. The external space used a café-like setting surrounded by a fence to delimit the space and allow for crowd control. Upon entering, participants were given a brief overview of the activity (figure 1) and were directed to a table to sniff two anonymized samples of cinnamon. This activity, team members informed participants, was to help them think about how two things that are the same can also be different. It helped participants begin to attune their senses to small differences (c.f. Kitson and McHugh 2019). As most participants entered the space in groups, this also helped activate within-group conversation about memories associated with sensations. After sniffing the cinnamon samples, participants proceeded to the water bar and directed to take a water sample and a corresponding token. They then moved into the immersive tasting space. We offered three different locally produced waters from different parts of the valley. One of the waters was donated by a brewery and had been additionally treated by reverse osmosis; as such, it mimicked the sensory characteristics of DPR water (figure 2).

Figure 1:

Orientation sign from Tasting Water exhibit.

Courtesy Arizona State University and the ASU School for the Future of Innovation in Society

Figure 1:

Orientation sign from Tasting Water exhibit.

Courtesy Arizona State University and the ASU School for the Future of Innovation in Society

Close modal
Figure 2:

Water bar.

Photo by Shomit Barua © 2022

Figure 2:

Water bar.

Photo by Shomit Barua © 2022

Close modal

We used a charismatic, inflatable white dome to create an immersive sonic and visual space inside which consumers could taste the water, an aesthetic choice that also offered the practical advantage of visually competing with the light installations Canal Convergence is known for. The dome was divided into four pre-defined sections. We placed a fifth user-defined section in the liminal space between the immersive and orientation space. The different sections in the dome combined water associations generated by workshop participants with elements from the Taste and Odor Wheel for Raw and Treated Drinking Water (figure 3). Developed by water professionals in the 1990s, the taste and odor wheel is a communication device that helps water professionals identify and treat unwanted tastes and odors in the municipal water supply (I. M. Suffet, Khiari, and Bruchet 1999). Each section of the “wheel” in the dome reflected one of four major aesthetic descriptor groups regularly found in waters from the Phoenix region, and incorporated tangible material cues gathered from participant design workshops and published literature (Dietrich and Burlingame 2021; Westerhoff 2022) (table 1).

Figure 3:

Taste and odor wheel for raw and treated drinking water.

Courtesy of I. H. (Mel) Suffet, Scott Braithwaite, Yubin Zhou, and Auguste Bruchet. © 2019. “The Drinking Water Taste-and-Odour Wheel After 30 Years, Chapter 2,” In Taste and Odour in Source and Drinking Water: Causes, Controls, and Consequences, edited by Tsair-Fuh Lin, Susan Watson, Andrea M. Dietrich, and I.H. (Mel) Suffet. London: IWA Publishing.

Figure 3:

Taste and odor wheel for raw and treated drinking water.

Courtesy of I. H. (Mel) Suffet, Scott Braithwaite, Yubin Zhou, and Auguste Bruchet. © 2019. “The Drinking Water Taste-and-Odour Wheel After 30 Years, Chapter 2,” In Taste and Odour in Source and Drinking Water: Causes, Controls, and Consequences, edited by Tsair-Fuh Lin, Susan Watson, Andrea M. Dietrich, and I.H. (Mel) Suffet. London: IWA Publishing.

Close modal
Table 1:

Identified poles and accompanying visual referents.

Labels / descriptorsTaste & Odor molecules often associated with descriptorsVisual ReferentWhat this flavor comes from via environment / processing
Earthy, Musty, Moldy MIB, Geosmin Plants
Cork
Dirt
“Many aquatic and terrestrial microorganisms including heterotrophic bacteria, cyanobacteria, fungi, and bryophytes produce this terpenoid, although… cyanobacteria are the major cause” (Dietrich and Burlingame 2020). Temperature changes, changes to water chemistry
Mineral, salty Sodium bicarbonate (chloride salt), sulfate, calcium, magnesium Morton Kosher salt
Gravel
Chalk powder
Naturally occurring elements, human action
Chlorine, bleach, Clorox, [Swimming pool] Hypochlorous acid (free chlorine), monochloramine, dichloramine Liquid “bleach”
Pool tabs “chlorine”
Infrastructure Hydrocarbons, copper, iron Copper and steel pipes
Hoses
Plumbing fittings
Labels / descriptorsTaste & Odor molecules often associated with descriptorsVisual ReferentWhat this flavor comes from via environment / processing
Earthy, Musty, Moldy MIB, Geosmin Plants
Cork
Dirt
“Many aquatic and terrestrial microorganisms including heterotrophic bacteria, cyanobacteria, fungi, and bryophytes produce this terpenoid, although… cyanobacteria are the major cause” (Dietrich and Burlingame 2020). Temperature changes, changes to water chemistry
Mineral, salty Sodium bicarbonate (chloride salt), sulfate, calcium, magnesium Morton Kosher salt
Gravel
Chalk powder
Naturally occurring elements, human action
Chlorine, bleach, Clorox, [Swimming pool] Hypochlorous acid (free chlorine), monochloramine, dichloramine Liquid “bleach”
Pool tabs “chlorine”
Infrastructure Hydrocarbons, copper, iron Copper and steel pipes
Hoses
Plumbing fittings

Our team created an environment inside the dome that provoked a rich sensory experience. Participants were invited to enter the dome and immerse themselves, that is, to stand in the center, close their eyes, and focus on the sonic landscape. An immersive composition layered recognizable aquatic sounds such as drops of water, natural streams, swishing jugs, and water in metal containers and pipes. A second, abstracted layer remixed and blended these sounds at random and varied amplitudes to create a haunting, textural wash. These sounds played in an indeterminate pattern through eight speakers, equally spaced and arranged radially inside the dome, to create an indeterminate and slightly disorienting 360-degree composition. This process (1) immersed the participant and calmed the amygdala through sonic/somatic grounding, (2) defamiliarized the experience of water and attenuated listeners to more traditional or preconditioned notions of varieties of water types (natural, treated, etc.), and (3) reinforced the mindset that water can be perceived as a deeply complex and nuanced interaction of physical and temporal processes (soundscape available at www.shomitbarua.com/knowing-water).

Four changing visual tableaus representing the four descriptor categories (table 1) added to the soundscape enveloping participants. Each tableau consisted of a series of slides that were literal expressions of the tableau’s theme (chlorine = swimming pools; earthy/musty/moldy = dirt + vegetation; mineral = rocks; infrastructure = pipes). The images were framed to give a figurative or textural impressions of each tableau’s theme. The length of each slide varied and each tableau was programmed to shift phase and rotate asynchronously to promote an undulating consideration of dominant versus global flavor impressions (figure 4).

Figure 4:

Participant in Tasting Water exhibit.

Photo by Christy Spackman © 2022

Figure 4:

Participant in Tasting Water exhibit.

Photo by Christy Spackman © 2022

Close modal

Our primary aim in Tasting Water was not one-way taste education. Rather, we sought to highlight the fact that water has tastes, and in the process open a two-way communication channel between consumers and water professionals around the embodied and communal aspects of tasting. To achieve this, we drew on the concept of polarized sensory positioning (PSP) (Teillet et al. 2010) to build in an opportunity for participants to leave behind visible traces of their experiences at the different aesthetic poles in the exhibit. In the sensory science laboratory, PSP is a comparative sensory science approach developed for the water tasting. PSP minimizes the numbers of samples needed in a tasting task. It accomplishes the goal of minimizing numbers of samples and expertise by inviting consumers to decide whether an unknown sample is like a known taste profile. While we did not strictly adhere to the PSP approach, we used PSP’s insights that comparative tasting with taste cues decreases the cognitive load required to taste different waters. Instead of asking participants to mark their experiences on a piece of paper or via a computer program as one might in the laboratory setting, we provided colored tokens corresponding to each water sample.

Because taste plays a role in how open people are to new approaches for making drinking water, we additionally ran smaller group workshops during the exhibit. These workshops focused on a collaborative futuring activity. In the futuring activity, we asked participants to consider the dome as a physical manifestation of how people responsible for the sensory qualities of municipal water understood and talked with each other about the tastes and smells in raw and treated drinking water. We asked which of the sensations represented by the objects in the dome they would like to still see present in their water system of the future. Once participants had decided, we placed the objects in the center of the dome. We then discussed reasons as a group. One especially notable interaction occurred when a subgroup of participants initially excluded chlorine from the water of the future, and then changed their mind in the group discussion, deciding that they valued the safety chlorine represented, but also wanted minimal detectability. As such, the bleach was moved farther away from the center of the circle (figure 5).

Figure 5:

Futuring activity.

Photo by Christy Spackman © 2022

Figure 5:

Futuring activity.

Photo by Christy Spackman © 2022

Close modal

In recognition that one of the core weaknesses of current sensory approaches is the failure to account for and record sensory experiences that fall outside of the bounds of scientific knowledge production, we additionally incorporated a fifth aesthetic pole in the exhibit. This user-generated section offered additional material cues drawn from participant insights during workshops, such as a clock (to represent the changing sensations over time), a plastic bottle, Jell-O, and more. We also included sticky notes, inviting participants to write down their own personal cues if our pre-provided cues did not work (figure 6). This table was unevenly engaged with over the course of Canal Convergence, but did yield some especially interesting interactions and observations. For example, one group of participants in their late teens or early twenties spent a significant amount of time at the user-generated table. When asked why, one member responded: “I liked the creativity of it, the rest of the stuff is pretty basic. I want to see what it’s like to taste time.”

Figure 6:

DIY table and tokens.

Photo by Christy Spackman © 2022

Figure 6:

DIY table and tokens.

Photo by Christy Spackman © 2022

Close modal

Practices of making taste public exist in a variety of nonscientific spaces, from online restaurant evaluations to Instagram accounts (Yu and Margolin 2021; Contois and Kish 2022). Experimental eating, however, is less common (Voß and Guggenheim 2019), despite the opportunities experimental eating can offer with regards to new or emerging (and potentially controversial) technologies. However, capturing the potential of experimental eating to open up new modes of communication between policymakers and consumers requires moving beyond the hedonic “I like” or “I dislike” mode of evaluation. The colored tokens we asked participants to place at tables with cues that corresponded to their tasting experiences sought to move participants beyond hedonic evaluation, while also highlighting the communal aspects of how people taste.

From a scientific perspective, our experimental eating approach offered an array of biasing factors; several participants commented that the exhibit “was not going to offer reliable results.” While the critiques of biasing factors is ostensibly correct within the framing of laboratory practice, they entirely overlook the aims of art-science practice in, as Andrew Yang suggests, “creating a space of meaningful uncertainty” (Yang 2015). Meaningful uncertainty, Yang argues, offers an opportunity for resetting the epistemic principles guiding how researchers and others evaluate the usefulness of experiments done outside of disciplinary boundaries; it offers a space for “configuring new and largely uncharted kinds of meaning” (2015). We see meaningful uncertainty as a necessary to reframing the conversation around technologies like DPR that depend on forgetting, specifically because forgetting at the regulatory and institutional level seems to play a key role in activating tensions between embodied knowledge and professional expertise. Rather than telling people what to think, or trying to educate away embodied concerns, Tasting Water engaged the public and water professionals in an open-ended invitation to rethink the way they use taste within a larger series of remembering practices in evaluating their water.

Tasting Water highlighted for participants the ways that tasting is not actually entirely individual, but rather situated. Family groups made this most explicit, with caregivers and children engaging in some of the most extended conversations we observed. For example, we observed two adult men with a little girl discussing their experiences back and forth as they tasted in the exhibit space. “It’s OK. I’m not scared. It’s water,” the girl said to the man. One man observed about one of the waters, “It tastes like my RO water.” The girl observed back, “It tastes like dirt,” for one sample, then exclaimed “Pipes!” and later to one of the men, “I did [place my token for] pipes two times.” Similarly, the tokens left behind on tables offered subsequent participants the opportunity to agree, disagree, or simply be curious about other people’s tasting experiences. We observed a father–son team tasting. The father asked his son, “What is the most important thing you learned while tasting water…did anything surprise you?” The son responded, “the water tasted different” and mentioned that he was able to make a decision about where to put the tokens based on the number of tokens that were on the table. In contrast, one participant commented, “I saw what other people were putting their chips down with and I just didn’t agree with what other people were doing,” highlighting that while this participant saw themselves as within a community of tasters, they also disagreed with the experiences of others. Another group of friends found it difficult to reconcile the very different tasting experiences they were having, with one person commenting to his friend: “Did I get a different water to you? I don’t taste that at all. Maybe it’s because I grew up drinking tap [water].” The lack of alignment seen with regards to dominant taste sensations across the exhibit demonstrated the challenges intrinsic in tasting water. More critically, the lack of alignment highlighted the meaningful differences between people’s disparate remembered experiences with water, and the uncertainty about what “good” or “bad” tasting water actually is.

One form of meaningful uncertainty that surprised us was the apparent risk participants and potential participants saw in the invitation to make their tastes public. We noticed a self-consciousness in participants’ body language in that moment when they put their token down on a table: participants often walked away quickly from the table. Once the token is placed, one’s interior experience is expressed publicly. But, by stepping away, the experience becomes private again through the anonymity of the token. When we presented the exhibit on the Arizona Water ’22 exhibitor floor, we noticed a surprising number of attendees who were unwilling to participate despite their expertise in water writ large. While it is impossible to know why so many chose not to participate, we had multiple people tell us, “I know what water tastes like,” foreclosing the opportunity for that expertise to be proved “incorrect” by the uncertainty in the anonymized samples and the public visibility of what they perceived. Opting out of tasting, too, is a form of meaningful uncertainty in its refusal to let someone else, expert or not, direct action.

The sociality of tasting, we think, is one of the most critical, yet missing, parts of conversations around what sort of water futures Phoenix-area inhabitants would like to see realized. One of our initial workshop participants was especially clear that the reason she avoided using tap water was because others in her social network distrusted the water and its sensory characteristics. Current educational and communication approaches used by water utilities, however, lack the ability to engage the sociality of tasting. By translating the sociality of taste through meaningful uncertainty, Tasting Water opens the door for further exploration of how to valorize the sociality and subjectivity of taste rather than to discount it in discussions around DPR.

Tasting Water acted as a multidirectional communication vehicle. It allowed us to engage water hesitant consumers from the Phoenix region, local residents and visitors from various areas around the valley (although primarily the east side of the valley), and decision makers from utilities and regional water think tanks. We evaluated the success of Tasting Water via its ability to activate the consuming public as well as producers and policymakers in remembering the multiple aspects of water. Perhaps the most telling measure of success is in the invitation extended to us to bring the exhibit to Arizona Water ’22, and in the enthusiasm exhibited after by water directors from more than one Phoenix-area utility. In recognition of this political potential, as well as of the challenges associated with putting on a full-scale exhibit, we are currently working in collaboration with community members and local Phoenix-area utilities on building a small, portable exhibit that utility communications or outreach teams could use. The aim of this in-process exhibit, like that of Tasting Water, is not only to educate but also to provide opportunities for policymakers and utility leaders to learn more about the hopes and desires for water futures held by members of the public under their jurisdiction. We anticipate these interventions into conventional drinking water and DPR carrying significant potential for publics and decision makers exploring new or emerging foodstuff-related technologies.

Spackman authored the majority of the paper. Spackman and Manheim co-conceived the project, with Manheim taking lead on project design and implementation. Spackman, Manheim, and Barua co-conducted workshops, exhibit design, and analysis. Barua led on sound and projected visual art design.

We are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers who provided valuable feedback on this manuscript; to the students of FIS 201 (Fall ’21) for providing feedback; to Oluwabukola Makinde, Lauryn Mannigel, and Brandon Lofgreen for research assistance during Canal Convergence; to Ben Spackman, Charles Wheeler, and Susie Wheeler for assistance in exhibit setup and breakdown; to two Phoenix-area municipal water providers and OHSO Brewery for providing water; to Scottsdale Arts for providing exhibit space, technical support, and marketing for Canal Convergence; and to the Arizona Water Conference organizing committee for providing exhibit space on the conference floor. Spackman’s start-up fund, and grants from the Julie Ann Wrigley Global Futures Laboratory, The Center for Experimental Humanities, the Earth System Science for the Anthropocene, and the Morrison Neely Foundation Food and Agriculture supported the development and building of the Tasting Water exhibit. This research was declared IRB exempt.

1.

Some perceive it as a “new water supply,” but most acknowledge it is simply using existing supplies more efficiently.

2.

The prohibition on DPR was repealed in 2018, but since then ADEQ has only provisionally permitted direct potable reuse systems for demonstration purposes. Efforts are currently underway to draft rules to fully permit DPR facilities in the state.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
.
2017
. “
Draft Permit: State of Arizona Individual Reclaimed Water Permit No. R-512402
.” https://static.azdeq.gov/pn/draft_permit_water_innovation.pdf
Baur
,
Patrick
.
2016
. “Ordering People and Nature through Food Safety Governance.”
PhD dissertation
,
University of California
,
Berkeley, California
.
Besky
,
Sarah
.
2014
. “
The Labor of Terroir and the Terroir of Labor: Geographical Indication and Darjeeling Tea Plantations
.”
Agriculture and Human Values
31
.
1
:
83
96
.
Burlingame
,
Gary A.
, and
E. D.
Mackey
.
2007
. “
Philadelphia Obtains Useful Information from Its Customers about Taste and Odour Quality
.”
Water Science and Technology
55
.
5
:
257
83
.
Burlingame
,
Gary A
.
2021
. “
Customer Complaints Provide Learning Opportunities
.”
Opflow
47
.
2
:
26
28
.
Charles
,
Nicole
.
2018
. “
HPV Vaccination and Affective Suspicions in Barbados
.”
Feminist Formations
30
.
1
:
46
70
.
Contois
,
Emily J. H.
, and
Zenia
Kish
, eds.
2022
.
Food Instagram: Identity, Influence, and Negotiation
.
Champaign
:
University of Illinois Press
.
Dietrich
,
Andrea M.
, and
Gary A.
Burlingame
.
2020
. “
A Review: The Challenge, Consensus, and Confusion of Describing Odors and Tastes in Drinking Water
.”
Science of The Total Environment
713
(
April
):
135061
.
Dietrich
,
Andrea M.
, and
Gary A.
Burlingame
.
2021
. “
Using Check-If-Apply Lists to Improve Communication about Aesthetic Issues
.”
Journal AWWA
,
April
,
22
32
.
Downey
,
Garry
, and
Teun
Zuiderent-Jerek
.
2017
. “Making and Doing: Engagement and Reflexive Learning in STS,” in
The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies
, edited by
Ulrike
Felt
,
Rayvon
Fouche
,
Clark
Miller
, and
Laurel
Smith-Doerr
, 4th ed.,
Ch. 8
.
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
El-Sayed
,
Sara
, and
Christy
Spackman
.
2022
. “
Follow the Ferments: Inclusive Food Governance in Arizona
.”
Gastronomica
22
.
1
:
20
33
.
Fountain
,
Henry
.
2021
. “
In a First, U.S. Declares Shortage on Colorado River, Forcing Water Cuts
.”
The New York Times
,
August 16, 2021, sec
.
Climate
Fraaije
,
Aafke
,
Marjoleine G. van der
Meij
,
Frank
Kupper
, and
Jacqueline E. W.
Broerse
.
2022
. “
Art for Public Engagement on Emerging and Controversial Technologies: A Literature Review
.”
Public Understanding of Science
31
.
6
:
694
710
.
Garcier
,
Romain
.
2010
. “
The Placing of Matter: Industrial Water Pollution and the Construction of Social Order in Nineteenth-Century France
.”
Journal of Historical Geography
36
:
132
42
.
Goldstein
,
Jenny Elaine
.
2011
. “
The ‘Coffee Doctors’: The Language of Taste and the Rise of Rwanda’s Specialty Bean Value
.”
Food and Foodways
19
.
1–2
:
135
59
.
Heymann
,
Hildegarde
.
2019
. “
A Personal History of Sensory Science
.”
Food, Culture, and Society
22
.
2
:
203
23
.
Hoover
,
Elizabeth
.
2017
.
The River Is in Us: Fighting Toxics in a Mohawk Community
.
Minneapolis
:
University of Minnesota Press
.
Illich
,
Ivan
.
1985
.
H2O and the Waters of Forgetfulness: Reflections on the Historicity of “Stuff.”
Dallas, TX
:
The Dallas Institute of Humanities and Culture
.
Jackson
,
Deborah Davis
.
2011
. “
Scents of Place: The Dysplacement of a First Nations Community in Canada
.”
American Anthropologist
113
.
4
:
606
18
.
Kearnes
,
Matthew
,
Judy
Motion
, and
Jennifer
Beckett
.
2014
. “
Australian Water Futures: Rethinking Community Engagement
.”
Project Report
.
Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence
. http://vuir.vu.edu.au/32222/1/Australian%2BWater%2BFutures%2B-%2BRethinking%2BCommunity%2BEngagement%2B100815.pdf
Kitson
,
Jennifer
, and
Kevin
McHugh
.
2019
. “
Olfactory Attunements and Technologies: Exposing the Affective Economy of Scent
.”
GeoHumanities
5
.
2
:
533
53
.
Lauer
,
William C.
,
Stephen E.
Rogers
, and
Jean M.
Ray
.
1985
. “
The Current Status of Denver’s Potable Water Reuse Project
.”
Journal (American Water Works Association
)
77
.
7
:
52
59
.
Leysne
,
Wendy L. H
.
2006
. “
Journeys through ‘Ingestible Topography’; Socializing the ‘Situated Eater’ in France
.”
European Studies
22
:
129
58
.
Manheim
,
Marisa K
, and
Christy
Spackman
.
2022
. “
Embodied Rationality: A Framework of Human Action in Water Infrastructure Governance
.”
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
56
(
June
):
101170
.
Melosi
,
Martin V
.
2008
.
The Sanitary City: Environmental Services in Urban America from Colonial Times to the Present (Abridged Edition)
.
Pittsburgh, PA
:
University of Pittsburgh Press
.
Morgan
,
E. A.
, and
D.C.C.
Grant-Smith
.
2015
. “
Tales of Science and Defiance: The Case for Co-Learning and Collaboration in Bridging the Science/Emotion Divide in Water Recycling Debates
:”
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
:
58
.
10
:
1770
88
.
Mosher
,
J. J.
, and
G. M.
Vartanian
.
2018
. “
Guidance Framework for Direct Potable Reuse in Arizona. Prepared for WateReuseArizona, AZ Water Association, and the Steering Committee for Arizona Potable Water Reuse
.” https://west.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/NWRI-Guidance-Framework-for-DPR-in-Arizona-2018.pdf
Muniesa
,
Fabian
, and
Anne-Sophie
Trébuchet-Breitwiller
.
2010
. “
Becoming a Measuring Instrument
.”
Journal of Cultural Economy
3
.
3
:
321
37
.
Novak
,
Magdalena
,
Siëlle
Phelan
,
Doris
Lewalter
, and
Stephan
Schwan
.
2020
. “
There Is More to Touch than Meets the Eye: Haptic Exploration in a Science Museum
.”
International Journal of Science Education
42
.
18
:
3026
48
.
Ormerod
,
Kerri Jean
.
2017
. “
Common Sense Principles Governing Potable Water Recycling in the Southwestern US: Examining Subjectivity of Water Stewards Using Q Methodology
.”
Geoforum
86
(
November
):
76
85
.
Ormerod
,
Kerri Jean
, and
Christopher A.
Scott
.
2013
. “
Drinking Wastewater: Public Trust in Potable Reuse
.”
Science, Technology, & Human Values
38
.
3
:
351
73
.
Paxson
,
Heather
.
2019
. “
‘Don’t Pack a Pest’: Parts, Wholes, and the Porosity of Food Borders
.”
Food, Culture & Society
22
.
5
:
657
73
.
Pulido
,
Laura
.
2016
. “
Flint, Environmental Racism, and Racial Capitalism
.”
Capitalism Nature Socialism
27
.
3
:
1
16
.
Pursey
,
Tom
, and
David
Lomas
.
2018
. “
Tate Sensorium: An Experiment in Multisensory Immersive Design
.”
The Senses and Society
13
.
3
:
354
66
.
Rice
,
Jacelyn
,
Amber
Wutich
,
Dave D.
White
, and
Paul
Westerhoff
.
2016
. “
Comparing Actual de Facto Wastewater Reuse and Its Public Acceptability: A Three City Case Study
.”
Sustainable Cities and Society
27
(
November
):
467
74
.
Rozin
,
Paul
,
Brent
,
Carol
Nemeroff
, and
Paul
Slovic
.
2015
. “
Psychological Aspects of the Rejection of Recycled Water: Contamination, Purification and Disgust
.”
Judgment and Decision Making
10
.
1
:
50
63
.
Scruggs
,
Caroline E.
,
Claudia B.
Pratesi
, and
John R.
Fleck
.
2020
. “
Direct Potable Water Reuse in Five Arid Inland Communities: An Analysis of Factors Influencing Public Acceptance
.”
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
63
.
8
:
1470
1500
.
Shapin
,
Steven
.
2012
. “
The Sciences of Subjectivity
.”
Social Studies of Science
42
.
2
:
170
84
.
Shields-Argèles
,
Christy
.
2019
. “
A Cooperative Model of Tasting: Comté Cheese and the Jury Terroir
.”
Food, Culture, and Society
22
.
2
:
168
85
Spackman
,
Christy
.
2020
a. “
Just Noticeable: Erasing Place in Municipal Water Treatment in the U.S. during the Interwar Period
.”
Journal of Historical Geography
67
(
January
):
2
13
.
Spackman
,
Christy
.
2020
b. “
In Smell’s Shadow: Materials and Politics at the Edge of Perception
.”
Social Studies of Science
,
May, 0306312720918946
.
Spackman
,
Christy
, and
Gary
Burlingame
.
2018
. “
Sensory Politics: The Tug-of-War between Potability and Palatibility in Municipal Water Production
.”
Social Studies of Science
48
.
3
:
350
71
.
Suffet
,
I. H. (Mel)
,
Scott
Braithwaite
,
Yubin
Zhou
, and
Auguste
Bruchet
.
2019
. “The Drinking Water Taste-and-Odour Wheel after 30 Years,” in
Taste and Odour in Source and Drinking Water: Causes, Controls, and Consequences
, edited by
Tsair-Fuh
Lin
,
Susan
Watson
,
Andrea M.
Dietrich
, and
I.H. (Mel)
Suffet
.
London
:
IWA Publishing
.
Suffet
,
I. H.
(Mel)
,
Djanette
Khiari
, and
Auguste
Bruchet
.
1999
. “
The Drinking Water Taste and Odor Wheel for the Millennium: Beyond Geosmin and 2-Methylisoborneol
.”
Water Science and Technology
40
.
6
:
1
13
.
Teillet
,
Eric
,
Pascal
Schlich
,
Christine
Urbano
,
Sylvie
Cordelle
, and
Elisabeth
Guichard
.
2010
. “
Sensory Methodologies and the Taste of Water
.”
Food Quality and Preference
,
Eighth Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium
,
21
.
8
:
967
76
.
“Tier 2 Shortage Declared for 2023—Basin States Fail to Reach Colorado River Usage Agreement.”
2022
.
Wrrc.Arizona.Edu
.
August 19, 2022
Ulloa
,
Ana María
.
2019
. “
The Chef and the Flavorist: Reflections of the Value of Sensory Expertise
.”
Food, Culture, and Society
22
.
2
:
186
202
.
Voß
,
Jan Peter
, and
Michael
Guggenheim
.
2019
. “
Making Taste Public: Industrialized Orders of Sensing and the Democratic Potential of Experimental Eating
.”
Politics and Governance
7
.
4
:
224
36
.
Waters
,
Alice
.
2008
.
Edible Schoolyard: A Universal Idea
.
San Francisco
:
Chronicle Books
.
Weiss
,
.
2018
.
Real Pigs: Shifting Values in the Field of Local Pork
.
Durham, NC
:
Duke University Press
.
Westerhoff
,
Paul
.
2022
. “
Regional Water Quality and T&O Project Archives
.”
Westerhoff Lab. 2022
. https://westerhoff.engineering.asu.edu/research-theme/water-quality
Work
,
Stephen W.
,
Michael R.
Rothberg
, and
Kenneth J.
Miller
.
1980
. “
Denver’s Potable Reuse Project: Pathway to Public Acceptance
.”
Journal AWWA (American Water Works Association)
72
.
8
:
435
40
.
Yang
,
Andrew
.
2015
. “
That Drunken Conversation between Two Cultures: Art, Science, and the Possibility of Meaningful Uncertainty
.”
Leonardo
48
.
3
:
318
21
.
Yu
,
Chao
, and
Drew
Margolin
.
2021
. “
Food ‘Taste’ on Yelp: Displays of Cultural Omnivorousness and Authenticity in Dining Choices and Online Reviews
.”
Food, Culture & Society
0
.
0
:
1
21
.

### Appendix

Workshop 1

TimeFacilitatorActivity
0:00 Play music at the start of the workshop when people are logging on.Remind people to have mystery food, waters in labeled cups, handouts, pen
0:05 Christy Welcome
• – Reminder that this will be recorded [start recording]

• – Facilitator intros

• – Highlight that everyone will get the chance to introduce themselves in more detail in a little bit

• – Explain why we are doing this workshop

• – present Canal Convergence

• – Go over logistics

• – Tour of zoom

• – “We find this work a lot better when people keep their videos on, but we understand if you have to turn your video off if you need to for a minute or two”

• – Demonstrate where participants can find the following: Mute & Video buttons, Chat window, Gallery view

• – Remind participants that “You can log back in if you accidentally get kicked out”

• – Explain that we will be sharing our screen from time to time. Show people how to toggle out of full screen so they can still see other participants

• – Remind people to use the mute button if needed

Marisa Grounding “Thank you for sharing time and knowledge with us and each other. I especially want to welcome all the different kinds of knowledge you each hold. Because we sense and relate with each other and to water through our bodies, we’re going to do a short grounding activity to help bring our full selves into the workshop… Feel free to turn off your video….. Sit up straight in your chair or stand; root your feet strongly on the ground; you can close your eyes if you want….. Now, imagine the layers of earth, water and air beneath your feet. What do you see?….. What do you hear?….. What do you smell? …… Now, imagine all the other organisms and minerals that may be present that we don’t usually take the time to recognize; how might they “know” water? ………… Now, imagine all the people who walked on this piece of ground before you; how did they “know” water?…. Returning to the present, back up to the surface of the earth, we welcome you again and invite all the different kinds of knowledge you hold into this workshop. Thank you for being present.
0:10 Christy Pair and share
Instructions
• – Zoom is going to put you into breakout rooms for 4 minutes, we’ll send message to everyone after 2 minutes

• – In your pairs, find common ground about food. [copy-paste instruction into chat]

• – We will come back and meet each other in 4 minutes [open rooms and start timer ]

• – [copy-paste into message for all]

Debrief

• – REMINDER: We go first to role model

• – To each pair, “Introduce each of yourselves first, and then tell us, how did you find common ground?”

• – Find opportunities to point out where X happened, add these to MIRO

• – Switching modes or materialities

• – Co-creating knowledge

• – Ways of relating across difference

• – (e.g. are the ways I'm asking questions changing how I feel?)

• – (e.g. what tone of voice did you use? what changes for you when you're not in X mode?)

0:30 Marisa Water imaginaries
Introduction: “This workshop is about discovering together what we each know about water and exploring the ways of relating to each other and to water. One way into this is through the senses, especially the less-noticed sense of touch, taste and smell. Another is through recognizing the influence of past experience on present knowledge and ways of knowing. Our focus is on drinking water. Drinking water is something we all do several times a day. Some people say you're an expert after you’ve done something 10,000 times. So every adult must be an expert on drinking water. But most of us don’t consider ourselves as experts. So in this activity we want to dig into that idea of expertise a bit more…”
Instructions: [on your handout] “I’m going to ask you a series of questions. Take a moment to think about what information you would need to know to answer this question. You can jot down some thoughts as these questions come up, and then we’ll share and maybe the discussion will spark new ideas. [Copy-paste questions into chat one at a time]
For amateurs/everyday experts:
1. What questions do you have about municipalities’ knowledge and values related to drinking water? …. What information do you need to answer this question?

2. What do you want to know about how municipalities understand *your* knowledge and values related to water? What do you think the municipal utility folks think you know about water? What do you think they would say about you? What do you think the municipalities think about your understanding?….

• – Capture questions and comments in MIRO “What questions do you have” board

0:50 Christy Tasting warm up
Introduction: “The exercises we’ll do together today are meant to activate and validate different ways of knowing. There is no “right” or “wrong” here. We are all experts of our own experience”
Instructions:
• – Turn your camera off for this tasting

• – You have each been given a DIFFERENT secret food item. Don’t tell us what it is!

• – We will be inviting you to taste this food in a few different steps. While you’re tasting, say out loud ANYTHING you are experiencing related to this food item (except what it is), but if someone else is speaking, you can jot it down on the paper provided notes so you don’t forget and share it later.

• – Open your Mystery Packet but don’t say what it is!

• – Take out the food. Sniff it. What do you notice? Now break it apart and sniff it again. What do you notice? Now put it in your mouth. Let it sit on your tongue for 10 seconds. What do you notice? Now chew it. What do you notice?

• – [Finally, unpack the tasting with them] How did hearing other people’s descriptions shape your own experience of tasting?

1:10 5 min Break [Set up screen share; ensure screen capture is recording correct people in zoom]
1:15 Christy Water tasting
Remind to taste carefully around their computers/ electronic gadgets
1. Tasting 2 waters [bottled, tap] to “trace intellectual genealogies”

• Past - personal memories

• Please pick a water. Close your eyes and take a sip of one of the waters. Take a minute and think about what does this water remind you of? What else?

• Now recover the water with the foil lid and take two minutes to jot down your thoughts

• Please repeat with the other water :

1. Please close your eyes and take a sip of one of the waters. Take a minute and think about what does this water remind you of? What else?

• Now recover the water and take two minutes to jot down your thoughts

• Present - sensory experiences, Tasting two (Connoisseur)

• How to taste?

1. Tasting like a connoisseur

• Look, sniff, swirl

• Look

• Smell

• Taste

• Describe

• Future - desires, fears, motivations

• Which of these waters tastes more like water from the future? Why?

2. We list these on MIRO board, and note “memory” “texture” “co-creation”

1:45 Marisa Water imaginaries REVISIT
• – Pull up the previous questions on MIRO - Imagining Future Water[

Copy-paste questions into chat one at a time]

1. “What new questions do you have? Are any questions less important?”

2. “How could these tastings or a similar activity help answer the question about the future taste of water? How could it be improved?”

1:55 Christy Closing
• – Thank you

• – Reminders

• – Take the workshop evaluation; when you submit the evaluation, you will receive a link a form where you will select your e-gift card

• – The question about tax status on the form is purely for administrative purposes and will not be shared, selecting “other” will not disqualify you and you will still get paid

• – Next workshop day and timeLink to workshop evaluation

2:00 Copy-paste link to evaluation: (keep zoom open until everyone signs off to make sure they have time to use link)
TimeFacilitatorActivity
0:00 Play music at the start of the workshop when people are logging on.Remind people to have mystery food, waters in labeled cups, handouts, pen
0:05 Christy Welcome
• – Reminder that this will be recorded [start recording]

• – Facilitator intros

• – Highlight that everyone will get the chance to introduce themselves in more detail in a little bit

• – Explain why we are doing this workshop

• – present Canal Convergence

• – Go over logistics

• – Tour of zoom

• – “We find this work a lot better when people keep their videos on, but we understand if you have to turn your video off if you need to for a minute or two”

• – Demonstrate where participants can find the following: Mute & Video buttons, Chat window, Gallery view

• – Remind participants that “You can log back in if you accidentally get kicked out”

• – Explain that we will be sharing our screen from time to time. Show people how to toggle out of full screen so they can still see other participants

• – Remind people to use the mute button if needed

Marisa Grounding “Thank you for sharing time and knowledge with us and each other. I especially want to welcome all the different kinds of knowledge you each hold. Because we sense and relate with each other and to water through our bodies, we’re going to do a short grounding activity to help bring our full selves into the workshop… Feel free to turn off your video….. Sit up straight in your chair or stand; root your feet strongly on the ground; you can close your eyes if you want….. Now, imagine the layers of earth, water and air beneath your feet. What do you see?….. What do you hear?….. What do you smell? …… Now, imagine all the other organisms and minerals that may be present that we don’t usually take the time to recognize; how might they “know” water? ………… Now, imagine all the people who walked on this piece of ground before you; how did they “know” water?…. Returning to the present, back up to the surface of the earth, we welcome you again and invite all the different kinds of knowledge you hold into this workshop. Thank you for being present.
0:10 Christy Pair and share
Instructions
• – Zoom is going to put you into breakout rooms for 4 minutes, we’ll send message to everyone after 2 minutes

• – In your pairs, find common ground about food. [copy-paste instruction into chat]

• – We will come back and meet each other in 4 minutes [open rooms and start timer ]

• – [copy-paste into message for all]

Debrief

• – REMINDER: We go first to role model

• – To each pair, “Introduce each of yourselves first, and then tell us, how did you find common ground?”

• – Find opportunities to point out where X happened, add these to MIRO

• – Switching modes or materialities

• – Co-creating knowledge

• – Ways of relating across difference

• – (e.g. are the ways I'm asking questions changing how I feel?)

• – (e.g. what tone of voice did you use? what changes for you when you're not in X mode?)

0:30 Marisa Water imaginaries
Introduction: “This workshop is about discovering together what we each know about water and exploring the ways of relating to each other and to water. One way into this is through the senses, especially the less-noticed sense of touch, taste and smell. Another is through recognizing the influence of past experience on present knowledge and ways of knowing. Our focus is on drinking water. Drinking water is something we all do several times a day. Some people say you're an expert after you’ve done something 10,000 times. So every adult must be an expert on drinking water. But most of us don’t consider ourselves as experts. So in this activity we want to dig into that idea of expertise a bit more…”
Instructions: [on your handout] “I’m going to ask you a series of questions. Take a moment to think about what information you would need to know to answer this question. You can jot down some thoughts as these questions come up, and then we’ll share and maybe the discussion will spark new ideas. [Copy-paste questions into chat one at a time]
For amateurs/everyday experts:
1. What questions do you have about municipalities’ knowledge and values related to drinking water? …. What information do you need to answer this question?

2. What do you want to know about how municipalities understand *your* knowledge and values related to water? What do you think the municipal utility folks think you know about water? What do you think they would say about you? What do you think the municipalities think about your understanding?….

• – Capture questions and comments in MIRO “What questions do you have” board

0:50 Christy Tasting warm up
Introduction: “The exercises we’ll do together today are meant to activate and validate different ways of knowing. There is no “right” or “wrong” here. We are all experts of our own experience”
Instructions:
• – Turn your camera off for this tasting

• – You have each been given a DIFFERENT secret food item. Don’t tell us what it is!

• – We will be inviting you to taste this food in a few different steps. While you’re tasting, say out loud ANYTHING you are experiencing related to this food item (except what it is), but if someone else is speaking, you can jot it down on the paper provided notes so you don’t forget and share it later.

• – Open your Mystery Packet but don’t say what it is!

• – Take out the food. Sniff it. What do you notice? Now break it apart and sniff it again. What do you notice? Now put it in your mouth. Let it sit on your tongue for 10 seconds. What do you notice? Now chew it. What do you notice?

• – [Finally, unpack the tasting with them] How did hearing other people’s descriptions shape your own experience of tasting?

1:10 5 min Break [Set up screen share; ensure screen capture is recording correct people in zoom]
1:15 Christy Water tasting
Remind to taste carefully around their computers/ electronic gadgets
1. Tasting 2 waters [bottled, tap] to “trace intellectual genealogies”

• Past - personal memories

• Please pick a water. Close your eyes and take a sip of one of the waters. Take a minute and think about what does this water remind you of? What else?

• Now recover the water with the foil lid and take two minutes to jot down your thoughts

• Please repeat with the other water :

1. Please close your eyes and take a sip of one of the waters. Take a minute and think about what does this water remind you of? What else?

• Now recover the water and take two minutes to jot down your thoughts

• Present - sensory experiences, Tasting two (Connoisseur)

• How to taste?

1. Tasting like a connoisseur

• Look, sniff, swirl

• Look

• Smell

• Taste

• Describe

• Future - desires, fears, motivations

• Which of these waters tastes more like water from the future? Why?

2. We list these on MIRO board, and note “memory” “texture” “co-creation”

1:45 Marisa Water imaginaries REVISIT
• – Pull up the previous questions on MIRO - Imagining Future Water[

Copy-paste questions into chat one at a time]

1. “What new questions do you have? Are any questions less important?”

2. “How could these tastings or a similar activity help answer the question about the future taste of water? How could it be improved?”

1:55 Christy Closing
• – Thank you

• – Reminders

• – Take the workshop evaluation; when you submit the evaluation, you will receive a link a form where you will select your e-gift card

• – The question about tax status on the form is purely for administrative purposes and will not be shared, selecting “other” will not disqualify you and you will still get paid

• – Next workshop day and timeLink to workshop evaluation

2:00 Copy-paste link to evaluation: (keep zoom open until everyone signs off to make sure they have time to use link)

Workshop 2

End TimeFacilitatorActivity
-7:00 Christy Waiting
If you weren’t able to get your two glasses of water set up 30 minutes in advance, please do so now. One should be covered with either a plate or some tin foil. The other glass should be uncovered.
-7:05 Marisa0:05 Welcome
Thank you
Logistics
• – At the end of last workshop you all filled out an evaluation form. Thank you all for completing that. After you hit submit, there is a link to another form. This asks for legal name and tax status and what kind of gift card you prefer. We need to collect this information to distribute the gift card. If you didn’t fill it out last time, don’t worry your $50 from last workshop will be combined with this payment in a single gift card. This time, you will need to fill out the evaluation, and then another survey before you will see the link. Please make sure to complete this whole process after this workshop so we can pay you! -7:15 Christy 0:10 Reminder what happened last time • In our previous workshop we got to know each other and worked on building out our sensory attention to water • We used tap water and bottled water, not because we think bottled water is better, but because we needed a way to get you all the same water to try. • Today we are just focusing on tap water because we are working on building an exhibit about the tastes and smells of water in the Phoenix region. • Those activities and the padlet and today’s activities are to help build an exhibit about the flavors of tap water for Canal Convergence (and beyond) *Show water wheel from Suffet et al, • This is one perspective on what water is. This wheel helps the people who produce your tap water better talk to each other about the qualities of the water. It helps them decide what sorts of treatment approaches to take as the weather changes or the types of aquatic stuff living in water grows and dies • One of the questions you asked was about water experts and how they think about quality, • Our goal today is to invite you to contribute how you think about quality -7:45 Shomit 0:30 Show and tell of Padlets • – For those of you who were able to do a padlet, we’d like to invite you to share your insights with each other. • – Invite group to annotate: What do you notice about that, what’s interesting • – What else would you want to share that the Padlet didn’t ask you to? - 7:50 5-minute break - 8:15 Christy 0:25 [Populate onto Water Tasting #2 Miro] Now we are going to Co-create our own water wheel • Please take a piece of paper. Draw a line down the middle, and label one side “covered” and the other side “uncovered” • Next please repeat the tasting approach we used last week. Start with the uncovered water. Sniff it. What do you notice? • Write down your observations • Now sniff the covered water. What do you notice? • Write down your observations. • What is different? • The next steps are to look, taste (remember to roll it around in your mouth, hold it there, then breathe out of your nose or mouth) • Go ahead and keep tasting. Imagine you’re trying to describe this water to a friend who lives somewhere far away. What do they need to know about this water? • Here is a list of some words that water professionals commonly use to describe drinking water. • We have added in words we heard you use. We think there are more words/ phrases/ descriptions than these, but wanted to give you a place to start. • Please taste the waters again and tell us /write down the words that you think relate to the water. If you don’t have a word, feel free to use a memory, or an object, or such. • What for you is missing from this list of words? [Bring into view water wheel from Water Tasting #2 Miro] • One of the new categories that came up last time was “bodily sensations” which included “rejected by the body” “thirst quenching” “difficult to swallow”. What other new categories do you see or would you want to see? • What texture descriptions would you add? - 8:40 Christy 0:25 Future Water wheel The water wheel we have created so far represents past and present, we’d like to create a water wheel of future hopes. Imagine you’re 20 years in the future. This is a positive future, where humans have managed to find some kind of balance with our environment. You are thirsty and want to take a drink of water. [during prompts, add to new future water wheel in Miro] 1. What do you do? Do you go to the faucet? Do you go to the fridge? Or something else? 2. What kind of vessel do you fill? 3. You hold it up to your face • What does it look like? • What does it smell like? • What does it remind you of? 4. You take a sip. What does it feel like in your mouth? What does it taste like? 5. How does drinking this water make you feel? • [Show water wheel of future] [Bring Water wheel from Tasting #2 into the frame] • OK, let’s toggle back to the present. How might we make this present wheel become one capable of looking like the future. What do you want to keep, what do you want to take away from this, and what is missing that you want to add? - 8:45 0:05 Closing • – Share resources, plus shared water wheels, invite to CCCopy-paste link to evaluation: (keep zoom open until everyone signs off to make sure they have time to use link) End TimeFacilitatorActivity -7:00 Christy Waiting If you weren’t able to get your two glasses of water set up 30 minutes in advance, please do so now. One should be covered with either a plate or some tin foil. The other glass should be uncovered. -7:05 Marisa0:05 Welcome Thank you Logistics • – At the end of last workshop you all filled out an evaluation form. Thank you all for completing that. After you hit submit, there is a link to another form. This asks for legal name and tax status and what kind of gift card you prefer. We need to collect this information to distribute the gift card. If you didn’t fill it out last time, don’t worry your$50 from last workshop will be combined with this payment in a single gift card. This time, you will need to fill out the evaluation, and then another survey before you will see the link. Please make sure to complete this whole process after this workshop so we can pay you!

-7:15 Christy 0:10 Reminder what happened last time
• In our previous workshop we got to know each other and worked on building out our sensory attention to water

• We used tap water and bottled water, not because we think bottled water is better, but because we needed a way to get you all the same water to try.

• Today we are just focusing on tap water because we are working on building an exhibit about the tastes and smells of water in the Phoenix region.

• Those activities and the padlet and today’s activities are to help build an exhibit about the flavors of tap water for Canal Convergence (and beyond)

*Show water wheel from Suffet et al,

• This is one perspective on what water is. This wheel helps the people who produce your tap water better talk to each other about the qualities of the water. It helps them decide what sorts of treatment approaches to take as the weather changes or the types of aquatic stuff living in water grows and dies

• One of the questions you asked was about water experts and how they think about quality,

• Our goal today is to invite you to contribute how you think about quality

-7:45 Shomit 0:30 Show and tell of Padlets
• – For those of you who were able to do a padlet, we’d like to invite you to share your insights with each other.

• – Invite group to annotate: What do you notice about that, what’s interesting

• – What else would you want to share that the Padlet didn’t ask you to?

- 7:50  5-minute break
- 8:15 Christy 0:25 [Populate onto Water Tasting #2 Miro] Now we are going to Co-create our own water wheel
• Please take a piece of paper. Draw a line down the middle, and label one side “covered” and the other side “uncovered”

• Next please repeat the tasting approach we used last week. Start with the uncovered water. Sniff it. What do you notice?

• Now sniff the covered water. What do you notice?

• What is different?

• The next steps are to look, taste (remember to roll it around in your mouth, hold it there, then breathe out of your nose or mouth)

• Go ahead and keep tasting. Imagine you’re trying to describe this water to a friend who lives somewhere far away. What do they need to know about this water?

• Here is a list of some words that water professionals commonly use to describe drinking water.

• We have added in words we heard you use. We think there are more words/ phrases/ descriptions than these, but wanted to give you a place to start.

• Please taste the waters again and tell us /write down the words that you think relate to the water. If you don’t have a word, feel free to use a memory, or an object, or such.

• What for you is missing from this list of words? [Bring into view water wheel from Water Tasting #2 Miro]

• One of the new categories that came up last time was “bodily sensations” which included “rejected by the body” “thirst quenching” “difficult to swallow”. What other new categories do you see or would you want to see?

• What texture descriptions would you add?

- 8:40 Christy 0:25 Future Water wheel
The water wheel we have created so far represents past and present, we’d like to create a water wheel of future hopes.
Imagine you’re 20 years in the future. This is a positive future, where humans have managed to find some kind of balance with our environment. You are thirsty and want to take a drink of water. [during prompts, add to new future water wheel in Miro]
1. What do you do? Do you go to the faucet? Do you go to the fridge? Or something else?

2. What kind of vessel do you fill?

3. You hold it up to your face

• What does it look like?

• What does it smell like?

• What does it remind you of?

4. You take a sip. What does it feel like in your mouth? What does it taste like?

5. How does drinking this water make you feel?

• [Show water wheel of future]

[Bring Water wheel from Tasting #2 into the frame]

• OK, let’s toggle back to the present. How might we make this present wheel become one capable of looking like the future. What do you want to keep, what do you want to take away from this, and what is missing that you want to add?

- 8:45 0:05 Closing
• – Share resources, plus shared water wheels, invite to CCCopy-paste link to evaluation: (keep zoom open until everyone signs off to make sure they have time to use link)