Search

Small water systems are 13 times more likely to violate the Safe Drinking Water Act than large systems and are less resilient in the face of drought and other challenges resulting from the climate crisis. Low-income, rural, and indigenous communities bear the brunt of these consequences, thereby perpetuating inequality. Water system consolidation — or the merging of two or more previously independent water systems — presents one possible solution to many of these challenges.

A common approach in scientific research and policy is a commitment to develop projects or legislation trying to improve problems experienced by low-income and rural communities; however, lack of interaction with community members during the process tends to produce unsatisfactory results. We visited disadvantaged communities in the San Joaquin Valley of California and interviewed local stakeholders (community members and leaders, policy advocates, attorneys, and educators). Then we analyzed a corpus related to disadvantaged communities from a pool of California-related publications containing 154,000 scientific papers, 2.6 million newspaper articles, and 11,000 state legislation bills from 2017 to 2020 to estimate the frequency and quality of disadvantaged community representation. Here we present our findings describing the biases and gaps of knowledge by scientific papers, California newspaper articles, and legislation bills with respect to disadvantaged communities in California, and we suggest opportunities for scientists, media communicators, and policymakers to amplify the voices of these stakeholders. In all corpus categories, disadvantaged communities are underrepresented: about one in four Californians live in disadvantaged communities, but only one in 2000 news articles and scientific papers cover them. The concerns and priorities of disadvantaged communities do not match the public perspective of them depicted by the corpus. Developing effective policies requires addressing place-specific nuances and co-occurrence of structural inequities in partnership with local stakeholders. Holistic coverage in newspapers and community-based approaches are necessary platforms to increase awareness and sensibility about disadvantaged communities, helping tailor policy solutions, and building the political leverage needed to implement them.

Despite the reality that advocates frequently expend significant resources to pass symbolic policies, this policy design has often been neglected by policy studies scholarship. We combine policy design and policy feedback theory to examine this oft overlooked policy design in practice using the case of California's human right to water law (Assembly Bill 685, or AB 685). Through semi‐structured interviews, archival research, and document analysis, we reveal how grassroots advocates deliberately and effectively pursued AB 685 to build power across the water justice movement and catalyze narrative change about drinking water access, while also building state responsiveness on the topic. These interpretive policy feedback effects then accelerated the policy's resource effects through formal policy changes in funding allocations, administrative structures, and regulatory systems. Collectively, feedbacks from AB 685 have transformed the sociopolitics of drinking water access. Contrary to prevailing wisdom, the policy's ambiguity proved key to building the broad coalition necessary to accomplish these changes, and it facilitated work across policy venues and governance scales through time, which is critical to enacting transformational change. Based on these findings, we argue that symbolic policies merit attention as a potentially advantageous policy design for social movements seeking social change and transformation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the United States, most residents receive water from centralized utilities regulated under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Yet, a sizable portion of U.S. residents satisfy their household water needs through decentralized means, including domestic wells, very small water systems, and hauled water. These federally unregulated water users are among the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, particularly in aridifying regions like the Southwest. They are, however, inconsistently monitored and regulated at the Tribal, federal, state, and local levels. Compared to regulated users, very few programs exist to assist this population in securing and maintaining safe, affordable drinking water access. This neglect creates a vicious cycle whereby their water security needs remain both poorly understood and inadequately addressed. We review available data sources, regulations, assistance programs, and published studies relevant to unregulated water users across the Southwestern U.S. to illustrate this injurious feedback loop. We then propose four key areas for intervention to transform this vicious cycle into a virtuous one. Drawing on new insights from the emerging literature on modular, adaptive, and decentralized (MAD) water infrastructure, we highlight opportunities for investment and innovation to support decentralized service alongside existing investments in centralized infrastructure, and the critical need to attend to justice in the design and implementation of such policies.This article is categorized under: Science of Water > Water and Environmental Change Human Water > Water Governance Human Water > Rights to Water [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Collaborative environmental governance seeks to engage diverse stakeholders to tackle complex challenges efficiently, sustainably, and equitably. However, mixed empirical evidence underscores a need to understand the conditions under which particularly equity is or is not achieved. Here, we use the empirical case of California Sustainable Groundwater Management to quantify the extent to which vulnerable small and rural drinking water users' needs are addressed in collaborative groundwater planning. Drawing on a diverse array of mixed method data, we then employ Boosted Regression and Classification Trees (BRCT) to assess potential driving factors including collaboration, representation, elite capture, stakeholder engagement, and problem severity/salience. We find each to be influential, highlighting their relevance for equitable planning. We also find evidence that these relationships are complex and outcome specific. Nonetheless, the overall effect on the three equity measures is modest at best. More institutional analysis of collaborative governance regimes from diverse contexts is needed to build a comprehensive understanding of how to meaningfully advance social and environmental equity in such decentralized reforms. Based on our results, we suggest the answer, if there is one, may transcend current focal domains such as stakeholder representation and engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A consistent critique of the theory and empirical research on collaborative governance is a lack of conceptualization and analysis of the role of political power and inequality. Our paper contributes to this discussion by analyzing the formal representation of small disadvantaged communities in the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act in California. Employing primary and secondary data, we model the likelihood of representation in the state's new Groundwater Sustainability Agencies based on key attributes of both the communities and governance settings. We find that the overall collaborative governance is associated with increased representation of these marginalized stakeholders. Importantly, however, even in collaborative settings representation of the smallest, most low‐income communities and those lacking political recognition via incorporated cities or public water districts still lags far behind their more advantaged counterparts. In fact, disparities in representation along these lines increased. Using a uniquely interdisciplinary approach our analysis highlights the opportunity afforded by integrating collaborative governance and environmental justice in the shared pursuit of effective and equitable institutions and the inter‐related goals of equity and sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]