CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION SUMMARIES SECTION ABOUT WATER POLICY MAKES IT SUSTAINABLE

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION SUMMARIES SECTION ABOUT WATER

POLICY MAKES IT SUSTAINABLE

Section about water policy makes it sustainable. Sustainability has been a part of

the policy discussion since at least the Brundtland Commission in 1987 and scholars

have identified concepts and themes that should be present in policy to ensure overall

sustainability. However, there has been little research determining if these themes have

been integrated into policy. The motivation of my research was to use the themes found

in the literature to determine if sustainability has been incorporated into water policy.

The most effective way to determine if the themes are markers for sustainability

was to look at sustainable policy and find those themes within it. To do this, the research

looked at the water policy of cities that are considered sustainable. A city’s sustainability

was determined by its inclusion in several “Most Sustainable United States Cities” lists.

The most appropriate cities on this list and that fit with the research parameters were

Austin, Texas, and San Francisco, California. The research also included ‘control’ cities

that are not known for their sustainability but were similar in demographics, population,

and state to ensure that the final sustainability framework incorporates actual

sustainability themes and not false positive results. Therefore, the research cities are:

Table 1.1. Research Cities

Sustainable Cities

Control Cities

State

Austin

Fort Worth

Texas

San Francisco

San Jose

California

Finally, city policy is often influenced by state requirements or provisions. To understand

how the state affects city sustainability, the water policy of Texas and California was

analyzed with the same framework, looking for specific city requirements for local

governments.

This research attempted to answer two main questions. First, have the themes been

included in city water policy and are they indicative of sustainability? Researchers like

Dovers (1996) and Gleick (1998) have listed specific sustainability criteria that should be

in policy; my work looked to see if they have been included. Second, it was hypothesized

that the sustainable cities, Austin and San Francisco, would have the suggested themes in

abundance while the control cities, Fort Worth and San Jose, would have considerably

fewer. The question was whether this is accurate for the current state of water policy.

The results of this research included a framework to understand sustainability in

water policy better. This work is important as having a better understanding of what

makes policy sustainable and the associated sustainability framework will ensure that

government officials and decision makers will have the knowledge and resources available

to make informed policy decisions.

The dissertation is, for the most part, divided by state. Chapter two introduces the

current literature on sustainability and water policy. The third chapter outlines the

methods used for the study. Chapters four through six cover Texas, Austin, and Fort

Worth respectively, while chapters seven through nine outline the results from California,

San Francisco, and San Jose. Chapter ten analyzes and discusses the results with chapter

eleven drawing conclusions and lists recommendations for research cities and future

research.

CHAPTER TWO:

LITERATURE REVIEW

The idea of sustainability is found as far back as 17th-century forestry (Kuhlman &

Farrington, 2010). However, even after centuries of use, there is still a vague

understanding of what sustainability completely represents, and even though it is a

common phrase, it seems that most of the public is still unclear about what the word

means. It is frequently used in many different contexts, and in several different areas

(Wiersum, 1995); (Weber-Blaschke, Mosandl & Faulstich 2005).

It is evident when considering this apparent lack of understanding that there is a

necessity to preface the research in this field with an explanation of the term. This

explanation will then facilitate the determination of how sustainability correlates to water

policy. To do this, it is necessary to first respect the differences between policy and

management, then understand the history of sustainability as well as determine an

overreaching definition upon which to base the rest of the research findings.

Differences in Policy and Management

In reading through the literature, it has become apparent that there are limited

resources available to determine what makes a sustainable policy. Several articles

describe sustainable water management, but it appears that sustainable policy has not

been a topic of conversation. It seems that academics in this field have focused on

sustainable management and have not completely addressed the underlying concepts

associated with sustainable policy. In one recent example, Moore, von de Porten,

Plummer, Brandes, and Baird (2014) researched water policy reform and innovation in

2013. These authors concur that academic research surrounding water policy, innovation,

and sustainability is severely limited even though practitioner and policy agencies realize

the importance of these topics (Moore et al., 2014). During their research, they also found

that only about a quarter of the articles studied examine any form of innovation and that

any framework used to explain innovation in water policy does not exist (Moore et al.,

2014).

As previously discussed, there has been much more research performed in the field

of sustainable water management than there has been in the way of sustainable water

policy. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the differences between the two to

determine whether understanding the sustainability of the policy is a useful field of study.

Policy

Policy is, in the most general terms, a way to label, justify, and organize practices

and government processes (Colebatch, 2009). Per Colebatch, there are three main themes

associated with policy. Policy gives order by being a framework within which officials

operate. They also imply authority, which, in turn, legitimizes the practice or process.

Finally, policy indicates expertise as policy is a part of the governance of a problem area

and with that governance comes to an inferred knowledge of the problem in general

(Colebatch, 2009).

Public policy is the “expressed intentions of government actors relevant to public

problems in the activities related to those intentions” (Hoffman-Miller, 2013). These

definitions show that policy describes the actions taken by government agencies and

entities. Per Hoffman-Miller (2013), public policies enacted by governing boards

determine the nature and composition of services available to the public. Those services

are then carried out by various representative management agencies.

Management

Management is broadly defined as “the process of efficiently and effectively

accomplishing work through the coordination and supervision of others” (Wienclaw,

2008). Moreover, Barrow describes management as a dynamic process that can include

many aspects – “reduction of uncertainty, leadership, and motivation” (Barrow, 2006, p.

20). It becomes apparent when looking at these definitions that management has nothing

to do with the creation of its field or responsibilities, suggesting that policy is the starting

point from which management takes its cues. This research contends that to have

sustainable water management, the government must first implement a sustainable water

policy.

History of Sustainability

The idea of sustainability is long-standing. Even ancient literature makes a note of

man’s role as “geographic agent,” where he (sic) becomes “…partner with God, improving

upon and cultivating an earth created for him” (Wiersum, 1995, p. 321). This was the

typically accepted view of human’s role within nature. However, in the middle of the 17th

century, humanity began to work toward understanding the natural system to anticipate

what environmental modifications may lead to unplanned disasters (Wiersum, 1995). The

first time this idea of sustainability is found is in the field of forest management, in Middle

Europe, specifically France, with a significant publication by Evelyn in 1664 (Evelyn,

1664; Weber-Blaschke et al., 2005; Wiersum, 1995). This French writer claimed that the

current utilization of forest resources will negatively impact future generation’s continued

use of this resource (Wiersum, 1995). German foresters, on the other hand, first used the

word Nachhaltigkeit, meaning ‘to not harvesting more than what the forest yields in new

growth,’ in a 1713 publication written by von Carlowitz (Kuhlman & Farrington, 2010).

Since these early forestry stages, sustainability has grown to encompass many

more fields. In fact, much of the sustainability cannon is now understood in economic and

political terms (Goodland, 1995). There have been two significant advances in the

development of our understanding; the first with the advent of sustainable forestry as

already explained; and the second in the 1970s through 1980s during a global push to

better design environmental policy (Weber-Blaschke et al., 2005). While ideas of

conservation and preservation were prevalent before the 1980s, found in the writings of

John Muir and the actions of Theodore Roosevelt (Muir, 1897; Sedjo, 2008; Switzer,

2004), these ideas were not tied to sustainability. Rather, the ideas were linked to the

narrower view of conservation which is why these theories are not included in the

definition of sustainability.

In 1972, the Club of Rome was the first, in this era, to discuss sustainability, in a

study related to ‘Sustainable Development.’ The study heralded the first global

environmental conference. The World Commission on Environment and Development

was founded in 1983 and produced the famous Brundtland Report in 1987 (Weber-

Blaschke et al., 2005; WCED, 1987). This movement towards defining sustainability is

well-recognized by the famous Brundtland Report, which, among other goals, worked to

explain sustainable development. The commission established a connection between the

three tiers of sustainability (economics, environment, and society) and policy and

suggested broad policy reform to better accommodate sustainability (Dovers, 1996;

WCED, 1987). It is this modification for sustainability that this research aims to analyze.

The history of sustainability may be relatively short, yet since the Brundtland Report how

have policy makers incorporated sustainability in policy?

Sustainability Defined

Defining sustainable development is relevant to understanding sustainability as so

much of the current discussion regarding sustainability focuses on social development

and political progress. In other words, the definition of the term ‘sustainability’ is

“affected by ‘time and place in response to prevailing social, economic, and political

conditions’” (Weber-Blaschke et al., 2005, pg. 10). As previously stated, the Brundtland

Report delivered a comprehensive definition of sustainable development - “Sustainable

development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising

the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 41). This

definition states that environmental concerns are important but that citizens should be

more concerned with the welfare of the people, due to the represented concept of inter-

generational equality. Society cares about the environment because there is a need to

preserve it for future generations, not because the environment is intrinsically valuable

(Kuhlman & Farrington, 2010).

Then, in 1997, the United Nations adopted its official version of the concept that

suggests a change in understanding from environmental protection solely for humanity’s

sake to environmental protection for the environment’s sake: “Development is a

multidimensional undertaking to achieve a higher quality of life for all people. Economic

development, social development, and environmental protection are all interdependent

and mutually reinforcing components of sustainable development” (UN, 1997, p. 1).

Ecology

Economy

Society

Sustainability

In fact, many the definitions of “sustainability,” or variations of the term, include

consideration of environmental, economic, and social issues. There are two common

conceptions for how these issues interact. The first, more traditional concept, intersects

the ecological, economic, and social issues where the point of intersection is where

something is ‘sustainable.’ (See Figure 2.1) (Weber-Blaschke et al., 2005).

Figure 2.1 - Traditional Sustainability

* Adapted from Weber-Blaschke et al., 2005 p.8

The contemporary version critiques the previous understanding of sustainability

by contending that it removes society and the economy from the environment. The

modern version, therefore, assumes that the economy and society are a subset of the

environmental realm (See Figure 2.2). Based on the two different understandings of this

model, the traditional view is more anthropocentric in nature while the modern view is

considerably more biocentric (Weber-Blaschke et al., 2005).

Figure 2.2. Biocentric Sustainability

* Adapted from Weber-Blaschke et al., 2005 p. 9

Per Kuhlman and Farrington, 2010, the original Brundtland definition represents

the most appropriate understanding of the theory, and they state there is a need to return

to that more simplistic and straightforward understanding. They contend that

sustainability is “concerned with the wellbeing of future generations and in particular

with irreplaceable natural resources – as opposed to the gratification of present needs

that we call well-being. A balance needs to be found between those two, not by pretend

ing they are three sides of the same coin” (2010, p. 3438). While the article does make

several good points about the three ‘prongs’ of sustainability, reverting to the Brundtland

definition is not applicable when considering our current understanding of the term.

Society cannot look at sustainability specifically regarding gratifying social need and the

wellbeing of future generations. Instead, the needs of the environment and humanity’s

impact on the planet must be considered. Society must be more biocentric, and when

Ecology

Society

Economy

basing sustainability in the more straightforward, anthropocentric Brundtland definition,

we lose the important notion of our interconnectedness with nature. Even the United

Nations define three separate factors of sustainability – social, economic, and

environmental comparing the three as follows (Kuhlman & Farrington, 2010).

Social sustainability directly relates to a strong civil society when understood as

community participation with a cohesive cultural identity, diversity, tolerance,

compassion, patience, honesty, law, and so forth. This is also known as moral capital.

Economic sustainability, on the other hand, is the maintenance of all forms of capital,

including human capital (Goodland, 1995). Economic sustainability is frequently

considered only in terms of money; therefore, other intangibles such as intergenerational

rights and common access resources are hard to value. As such, precautionary principles

should be used as economists must err on the side of caution to remain sustainable

(Goodland, 1995). Finally, environmental sustainability involves humanity learning to

live within the limitations provided within the biophysical environment. Ultimately, there

can be no overall sustainability without environmental sustainability as it supplies the

conditions for social sustainability to be approached (Goodland, 1995).

Even during the era of the Brundtland Commission, academics realized the three-

pronged nature of the term (Brown, Hanson, Liverman, & Merideth, 1987; Gleick, 1998;

Simonovic, 2001). Brown et al. (1987) wrote that there are three contexts within which

the term, sustainability, is used, social, environmental, and economical. First, in a social

context – there must be the satisfaction of basic human needs to lead to the satisfaction

of the other levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1943). Discussed briefly,

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs states that humans must meet the most fundamental and

‘primary’ needs first to realize more complex goals, such as self-actualization or

achievement (Maslow, 1943). Therefore, the social is more interested with individual’s

self-actualization than ecosystems or countries. Ecologically, sustainability often focuses

on the functioning of natural biological processes and the conservation of biodiversity.

Economically, Brown et al. (1987) contend, it is harder to describe sustainability as

economists assume that economic growth is inevitable. However, economists clearly

understand the concept of scarcity of resources which are easily connected to the theory

of limited economic growth (Kuhlman & Farrington, 2010). Indeed, Simonovic (2001)

states “any assessment of sustainability would be incomplete if it did not address all three

facets,” and chapters eight and eighteen of the UN Agenda 21 states that sustainability

requires these three dimensions (Harmancioglu, Barbaros, & Cetinkaya, 2013). It is

evident, then, that the widely-accepted definition of sustainability includes the three

‘tiers’ of sustainability and has moved beyond the original Brundtland definition.

Because there are many ways to represent the three tiers in sustainability, there is

a consensus that there cannot be just one accepted definition, but rather an ever-changing

understanding which is based on time, place, and perception (Weber-Blaschke et al.,

2005). The economist, Solow (1991), confirms this point, stating that sustainability is an

intentionally vague theory, that it is intrinsically inexact and that it should best be

regarded as a general guide for a policy that has to do with investment, conservation, and

resource use. The deliberate ambiguity of the definition is also supported rhetorically with

Rydin’s (1999) analysis stating that the definition of sustainability is vague and that

different positions have the capability to lead to conflict. Rydin (1999) contends that

sustainability, in each instance, should be understood before proceeding with any political

action.

Therefore, in this time, for this research, and regarding application to water

policy, sustainability is best grasped by the UN Agenda 21 definition, considering the

three tiers of sustainability– social, economic, and environmental – where true

sustainability is found in the nexus of the three.

Sustainable Water Management

Now that the definition of sustainability has been presented, what does this have

to do with water management? Water management is about ensuring that water resources

are available for all users. Proper management also protects the citizenry from the

devastating effects of floods and other hazards (Postel, 2005). However, this management

must cooperate with nature to meet the three tiers of sustainability; this is accomplished

by protecting the needs of the environment, as well as the needs of the people and

business. To understand sustainable water management, it is necessary to comprehend

current traditional water management systems.

Traditional Water Resource Management

Traditionally, water management systems work from an engineering perspective

where dams and levees are the main practice (Sedjo, 2008). This includes controlling

problems through technological advances and “end of pipe” solutions. Technology-based

resource management is typically referred to as “command and control” solutions (Pahl-

Wostl et al., 2008). These strategies of the twentieth century worked against nature and

are characterized by large dams, extensive levee systems, river diversions, and other

engineering feats which provided drinking water, increased food production, electricity,

and flood control (Postel, 2005). The traditional management systems can have

destructive, long-term effects. According to Postel (2005), more than half of the world’s

largest rivers are interrupted by dams, thus disrupting ecosystems and eliminating many

species habitats. Also, many of the world’s largest, most recognizable rivers, the Colorado,

Indus, Nile, and Yellow Rivers are so overused that they no longer consistently flow into

the ocean. This lack of flow leads to the destruction of fisheries and degradation of coastal

zones. Undeniably, the loss of traditional watershed habitats, wetlands, floodplains, and

forested wetlands, has increased the costs of flood and natural disasters, both in social

and economic terms (Postel, 2005).

Additionally, water management involves many multi-objective tradeoffs in a field

that is traditionally multi-disciplinary and multi-participatory (Loucks, 2000). It is

apparent that the current system where one department manages drinking water, another

for water quality, another with irrigation, yet another for dams and levees with limited

communication between any agencies simply does not work and leads to conflict, waste,

and unsustainability (Integrated Water Resources Management Plans: Training Manual

and Operational Guide, 2005). Indeed, Loucks (2000) states that there is no single

discipline, profession, or interest group that has the understanding or knowledge to make

decisions between departments themselves.

Not only can traditional water management systems cause considerable

environmental and social damage, but the competition for water resources will only

increase between countries, peoples, ecosystems, and industries (Postel, 2005).

Traditional systems do not address many of these concerns or any change within the

system. The rate at which humans alter the environment through traditional water

practices greatly exceeds the rate at which humans understand the consequences of those

actions (Burns, Audouin, & Weaver, 2006). An obvious example is when plans for

continued urban growth demands additional water supply; the focus is almost always on

acquiring more water without considering surrounding ecosystems or environmental

water need (Marshall, Robles, Majka, & Haney, 2010). This type of water management is

not sustainable and must be adapted to meet the needs of all three sustainability pillars,

both now and for future use. The International Hydrological Programme, an initiative

established by UNESCO, noted: “It is recognized that water problems cannot be solved by

quick technical solutions, solutions to water problems require the consideration of

cultural, educational, communication and scientific aspects” (Shams, Chen, Arevalo,

Leone, & Moreno, 2013, p. 13).

Making Moves Towards Sustainability

The UN has stated that the management of resources should be an integrated

approach, to ensure sustainability, indicating that the UN understands water

management must be sustainable to be successful (Harmancioglu, Barbaros & Citinkaya,

2013). The central principle of sustainable water management is to view the system

holistically to guarantee that all three pillars of sustainability are considered. Hence

traditional water management systems should be redesigned to ensure sustainability

within the water system.

Sustainable water resource management recognizes not only the needs of ecology,

economy, and the community, but that these requirements (or goals) may change over

time, due to additional knowledge, change in socio-economic conditions, or uncertainties

due to climate change. Sustainable management will be adaptable enough to operate

under the changes needed, unlike traditional methods which focus on fixing problems

instead of adaptation (Loucks, 2000; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2008).

There have been several articles written that discuss the main requirements needed

for a sustainable water management system (Harmancioglu et al., 2013; Loucks, 2000;

Pahl-Wostl et al., 2008). These requirements listed within each article are overlapping in

nature and when combined create a picture of sustainable water management. The

numbered list below represents the combination of the requirements enumerated in the

articles listed above.

1. Participatory management and collaborative decision making, with attention

paid to societal need and behavior

2. Integration of water sectors and issues, a coordinated approach among all

agencies

3. Management at the source - not mitigating the effects

4. Anticipation of change with a decentralized, flexible management structure

5. Reliability and continuity of services, increasing public confidence

6. Environmentally explicit managerial goals while still respecting and ensuring

property rights – working collaboratively with stakeholders

7. Management of water resources within an appropriate spatial and time scale

8. Monitoring and evaluating actions to determine in goals and objectives are

being achieved

When these eight conditions are merged, the result is typically referred to as

Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM). IWRM is defined by the UN and the

Canadian International Development Agency as “…a systematic process for the

sustainable development, allocation and monitoring of water resource use in the context

of social, economic and environmental objectives.” (Integrated Water Resources

Management Plans: Training Manual and Operational Guide, 2005, p. 5). IWRM is

sustainable water resource management as it considers all three pillars of sustainability

and works to manage resources holistically.

Point eight in the list of requirements maintains that to be sustainable, it is necessary

to monitor and evaluate actions to determine if goals are being met. This dissertation

research began due to the contention that, just as important as evaluating effects is

assessing the obligations of the water management plan, more succinctly, the policy

involved.

Sustainable Water Policy

There are gaps in the literature when determining what makes a water policy

sustainable. Indeed, even the articles about sustainable governance note that

“…ultimately governance agendas are too diverse, and

stakeholder interests are too complex and multi-scaled, to

come up with a straightforward ‘best practice’ or universal

mode of …water governance toward which policy reform

should aspire” (Hirsch, 2006, p. 184).

The goal of sustainability is clear, yet the way in which to achieve these aims is most

frequently questioned. Because of this, many governments wait to introduce sustainable

themed policy seeing that policy is hard to adapt once adopted. However, the

implementation of sustainable water management and policy is integral to all

governments (Iglesias & Buono, 2009). Therefore, sustainable water policy is an essential

aspect of good governance.

Defining Sustainable Policy

A policy is a written set of rules, statements, or actions adopted to achieve certain

goals. Those policies surrounding water management deal with aspects of water use, from

collection, distribution, use, and disposal. Water policy and policy creation is typically

democratic, which tends to support short-term safeguards for a robust economy and

security (Meadowcroft, 2009; O'Riordan, 2009). An example of the reactive nature of

politics is demonstrated by the pollution in the Cuyahoga River catching fire due to heavy

industrial pollution acting as a turning point for the establishment of the Clean Water Act.

O’Riordan (2009) states that the government currently operates by consuming natural

resources, including water, overtaxing all ecosystems, and ignoring the welfare of people

who are unable to defend themselves from negative change. The pillars of sustainability

should be represented within water policy to safeguard water resources and water rights.

Water Policy and Reflexivity

Transition management is a model of environmental governance that suggests it is

possible to fashion a long-term change in large sociotechnical systems (Meadowcroft,

2009; Rotmans, Rene, & Van Asselt, 2001). In the case of my research, transition

management’s definition includes the process of embedding sustainability into the realm

of water policy. Within this framework, some features are relevant to sustainable water

policy. Meadowcroft (2009) lists five such features. First, sustainable water policy

should, in some fashion, steer society to accept the need for change based on potential

future capacities. Second, it should be oriented towards a desirable objective while

avoiding significant pitfalls. This may include a goal for water use or quality, or it may

include the creation of community education for conservation and reuse or a wide variety

of other water system needs. Third, the policy should include provisions that work to

protect vulnerable groups that may suffer under any changes. Note, in this feature,

Meadowcroft does not specify whether that group is human or non-human and could,

hypothetically, involve ecosystems. Fourth, new policy should be a reforming step

towards an restoration of government and social institutions to better cope with potential

futures. Fifth, policy should be interactive and include inputs from the communities.

These features point to the need for reflexivity, or “the capacity for continuous and

self-conscious reflection, assessment, and readjustment” (Meadowcroft, 2009). When

considering this idea in terms of policy, reflexivity can then be defined as the ability for

the policy to be assessed and adjusted based on additional knowledge. This makes the

policy ‘agile’ in nature and able to be adapted should the need arise. As previously stated,

agility is essential to sustainability; thus, reflexivity is as well.

Good Water Governance

Water governance is defined as “the range of political, social, economic, and

administrative systems that are in place to regulate the development and management of

water resources and provision of water services at different levels of society” (Hirsch,

2006). In the same vein, governance for sustainable development requires reforming

current government practices to encourage a shift toward sustainable and equitable

pattern of government and thus, development (Meadowcroft, 2009). Indeed, water

governance is significant because understanding “good governance” and applying it to

policy helps to ensure that the three pillars of sustainability, social, economic, and

physical systems are represented within that policy. The Global Water Partnership

suggested that “the water crisis is mainly a crisis of governance” (Hirsch, 2006).

The question then becomes, what does good governance entail? Hirsch described

the current governance problems and the reforms needed (See Table 2.1). This table was

created for the government but it can be contended that the information described is also

applicable to a policy, for what is government without policy? Sustainable policy must be

decentralized, consider the people, be transparent, involve whole water basins, and be

holistic.

In all, there is a proven need to involve sustainability in water policy. The question

then becomes how do we assess if a policy is sustainable seeing that there is not a singular

way to build a sustainable policy or an understanding of what makes a policy sustainable.

Table 2.1. Hirsch’s Governance Reform

PROBLEM

DIMENSION OF GOVERNANCE REFORM

Top-down Control

Decentralization to local governments and

principles of subsidiarity

Bureaucratic Control

Enhanced roles for civil society

State ownership,

micromanagement, and

allocative inefficiency

A place for the market; enabling and regulatory role

for the state in law, policy, and administrative

improvements

Closed and corrupt decision-

making

Participation, accountability, transparency

Geographical fragmentation

Transboundary management

The “silo” effect of bureaucratic

fragmentation

Holistic and/or whole-of-government approach

* Adapted from Hirsch, 2006. Water Governance Reform and Catchment

Management in the Mekong Region. Journal of Environment & Development.

Sustainable Policy Attributes

Dovers (1996) makes a strong case that sustainability is different from other policy

fields and should, therefore, be approached differently. To prove this, he lists ten specific

characteristics that define policy problems in sustainability. Even though these features

were discussed 20 years ago, in reviewing them today, these are still what make

sustainability different from other policy topics (See Table 2.2).

Table 2.2. Dovers’ Sustainability Attributes

ATTRIBUTE

REASONING

Spatial Scale

Most sustainability problems have no respect for national borders

or state lines.

Temporal Scale

Sustainability is not going to be achieved within one political cycle.

Limits

There is a limit to the interrelationship between human activity

and natural resources.

Irreversibility

There is a limited timeframe to make sustainable changes before

critical natural resources are lost or irreversibly damaged.

Urgency

Because of irreversibility and the limited timeframe, there is an

urgency with which policymakers must act to be successful.

Connectivity &

Complexity

All tiers of sustainability are interwoven even though that is not

typically the case in policy.

Uncertainty

Sustainability is not cut and dry, and scientists do not cannot

guarantee outcomes of actions taken.

Accumulation

During the time in which action is not taken there is an

accumulation of problems to face.

Morals and

Ethics

Sustainability raises new questions that may not have an answer.

Novelty

There is little political precedent regarding sustainability issues.

* Adapted from Dovers, 1996 Sustainability: Demands on Policy. Journal of Public

Policy. pp. 309-313

In addition to Dovers, Peter Gleick (1998) also presents seven sustainability criteria

for water planning that are applicable to the understanding of sustainable water policy.

He goes on to state that these points are not recommendations for action but should be

the goals or 'endpoints' for policy. While they are not all-encompassing, the points do

provide a guideline for planning. The seven criteria below were converted from Table 1 on

page 574, in Gleick’s 1998 article:

1. A basic water requirement will be guaranteed to all humans to maintain

people's health.

2. A basic water requirement will be guaranteed to restore and maintain the

health of the ecosystem.

3. Water quality will be sustained to meet certain minimum standards. These

standards will vary depending on locations and how the water is to be used.

4. Human actions will not impair the long-term renewability of freshwater stocks

and flows.

5. Data on water resources availability, use, and quality will be collected and made

accessible to all parties.

6. Institutional mechanisms will be set up to prevent and resolve conflict over

water.

7. Water planning and decision making will be democratic, ensuring

representation of all affected parties and fostering direct participation of

affected interests.

Dovers (1996, p. 307) also suggests that there are significant scale problems in

handling sustainability issues as they present themselves in all ranges of scale, each

needing different policy and management responses.

1. Micro-Problems: day-to-day sustainability matters that are typically easy to

manage, maintain, or adjust.

2. Meso-Problems: significant problems that do not pose a major threat to the

current patterns of consumption

3. Macro-Problems: Large sustainability issues that threaten the current way of

life. Issues such as water quality, climate change, and air pollution.

Dovers is not the only researcher to discuss sustainable policy challenges. Searle

(2007) and Kua (2013) also found that conflicts between the pillars of sustainability can

cause some significant turbulence as policy makers work to accommodate all three

particularly since issues typically involve more than one pillar.

There are several variables associated with successful implementation of sustainable

initiatives. Hoppe (2011) adds a layer to institution variables stating that intra-

organizational issues such as size, knowledge base, capacity, and expert availability all are

variables to successful implementation. The overall approach of my research is essential

to understanding sustainable water policy as even though sustainable water policy has

been described since the 1990s we have not seen the implementation of the originally

proposed criteria.

Overview of Current Policy Problems

The present method of policy development is fraught with problems that are in

direct contrast with the demands of sustainability. First and foremost, governments tend

to create policy out of a reactionary need, instead of anticipating the future need and

responding before a problem arises (Kua, 2013; Searle, 2007). This reactionary approach

means that organizations creating the plan have less time to grasp the situation than if

there was prior preparation for the situation. Sustainability issues are often ‘coupled,’

where one aspect positively or negatively impacts another. When policy makers do not

appreciate all angles of the situation, it can easily result in unintended consequences,

problems, or results to quickly ‘fix’ the original problem (Kua, 2013). Not only does this

reduce the overall effectiveness of policy creation but it also shows a weakness in the

current system.

This is a new realization of the tragedy of the commons (Hardin, 1968), written on

a political scale. Instead of a common grassland and cows, the story is told with public

goods, like water, and politicians. Each agency, whether at the federal, state or local level,

works to defend its right to exercise control of water resources (Doerksen, 1977). Political

agents are more interested in getting and maintaining power than they are with

cooperation and integrated usage. This power-grab is illustrated in Doerksen’s writing

about water resources in the late seventies, and one can contend that it is still prevalent

in government today, contributing to this modern tragedy of the commons where public

goods hang in the balance of political will. Examples are found in current events,

including the permitting process for the Pebble Mine in Alaska. The EPA has been

considering an unprecedented step into the battle between Alaskan commerce and

ecology to protect salmon hatcheries (Brehmer, 2014; "EPA's report on Pebble Project is

questioned," 2012). This example and countless others show that the modern system is

fragmented and is ruled by the agents who have vested interests in the management of

the public good, a 21st-century tragedy of the commons.

Not only is a policy created as a reaction to a problem, but because of the continued

fragmentation of the government sphere, completely grasping all aspects of the issue

throughout all agencies is difficult. This means that the policy created, in addition to being

a ‘quick fix,’ also may not correctly address agency needs or requests and most certainly,

will not address the needs for a comprehensive approach – as the three tiers of

sustainability necessitate (Searle, 2007). How, then, can government agents expect that

the policy hastily put in place today will remain viable in the long term?

It is common knowledge that politicians are highly aware of ‘election years’ and

that all controversial decisions are typically postponed during that time. This drive

towards reelection gives politicians a very short window within which to work, especially

if those politicians also have term limits, as is common in some U.S. states. Now,

sustainability goals are, by definition, long-term. This makes any effort at successful

creation of sustainable policy very unlikely, and those policies that are designed are more

likely to be watered-down attempts to placate advocates and environmentalists while

maintaining the status quo. Dovers (1996) shows that one of the most lauded

environmental policies, Australia’s Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) Policy,

is not about reform towards sustainable development but rather, he contends, an attempt

at non-disruptive reform at the margins of resource management, only recommending

minor adjustments to the current status quo. These minor adjustments can be seen as a

“token effort to take account of ecological principles while proving a cover for the

continuation of the exploitative ethic which informs so much of the Australian society”

(Mant, 1991, p. 414). In fact, environmental policy topics are frequently treated as ‘fringe’

or ‘marginal’ and may not receive as much attention as other social or economic policy

topics.

According to Rydin (1999), environmental and sustainable concepts and goals are

outside of the normal realm of ideas in politics, thus ‘robbing’ them of power. Moreover,

as shown by the Australian ESD, sustainability ideas are, typically, only accepted by

politics when they fit the current status quo (Dovers, 1996). Per Kua (2013), for

sustainable ideas to be successful in the current political climate, it is necessary to make

sure that those ideas integrate into the existing structure. However, research shows that

environmental goals are often in direct conflict with economic (Hoppe & Coenen, 2011)

and social goals (Searle, 2007). Environmental and sustainability goals are considered

marginal because so many other topics will tend to predominate the political culture.

Dovers (1996) also contends that there is little political culture for sustainability, and it is

such a small part of the overall political realm that there is an insignificant political

investment, debate or awareness.

Summary

The current sustainability cannon includes a wealth of information. Topics include

defining sustainability, recognizing the trend toward of sustainable water management

through the transition from traditional water management toward sustainable

management like IWRM, the importance of reflexivity, good governance, and what

sustainability attributes would benefit water policy. Current literature also covers the

problems with current policy and outlooks for the future. However, the literature is

missing the connection between attributes that would benefit water policy and those

themes that are currently in policy, thus making them sustainable. This is where my

research falls, bridging the gap between what scholars have determined should be in

policy and what policy makers have integrated into policy today.

Answering questions about the specifics of sustainable water policy is necessary to

ensure the long-term success of sustainability goals. To ensure that the management of

water is sustainable from its inception, an understanding of sustainable water policy is

essential. It is known that policy predicates management. It can be stated that, at its core,

sustainability is the nexus between the three pillars - environmental, economic, and

social. Therefore, these elements must be found in sustainable water policy.

This research will attempt to establish if the sustainability themes suggested by

scholars have been implemented into water policy. Researchers like Dovers (1996) and

Gleick (1998) have listed criteria or themes that ‘should’ be present in sustainable water

policy. The question, then, is whether these concepts have been implemented in policy

after nearly twenty years – and are they, indeed, standards for sustainability?

Several US cities are actively working towards implementing sustainability within

their governmental operations. Of these, Austin and San Francisco are governments most

active in sustainability. To understand sustainable water policy, this study will look at

these two cities and two ‘control’ cities within two separate states. It is hypothesized that

the water policies in the cities of Austin and San Francisco will have the three pillars of

sustainability while Fort Worth and San Jose will be lacking these pillars within their

water policy. These themes should be able to be assembled into a sustainability

framework, from which researchers will begin to have a clearer picture of sustainability

within policy.

CHAPTER THREE:

METHODS

Site Selection

While it is possible to hypothesize what themes make for a sustainable policy, it is

necessary to examine current policies that are considered sustainable to prove the validity

of the hypothesized themes. Because sustainable policy is a relatively new field, there is

not a list of policies that are considered sustainable; however, there are several lists of

purportedly sustainable cities. Finding cities considered ‘most’ sustainable was

accomplished by using recent lists, these form the basis for the study. Five ‘Top

Sustainable US City’ lists were analyzed as these were the most recent lists of this type

that were available. Each list was assembled by a non-profit organization, governmental

organization, or another reputable source.

 Corporate Knights 2013 Sustainable Cities Rankings

 Siemens 2013 Green City Index

 STAR Community Rankings System 2014 Communities List

 National League of Cities – Sustainable Cities Institute 2014 List

 Popular Science – 2008 America’s Greenest Cities List

Sustainable US Cities Lists

Corporate Knights. Corporate Knights (CK) is a media, research, and financial

company and magazine based in Canada. Their aim is to promote full economic pricing –

including externalities – and work to educate consumers on this pricing structure and

corporate practices ("About Us,"). In addition, they compile and rank sustainable cities,

for five previous years the company focused solely on Canada – in 2013 they expanded

their research to include the United States (Gondor, 2013). The website for this ranking

is http://www.corporateknights.com/reports/2013-sustainable-cities/

CK analyzes the sustainability of a list of cities in the United States and Canada

based on 27 indicators across five categories. The five categories include environmental

quality, economic security, governance and empowerment, infrastructure and energy,

and social well-being. Each of these categories are then divided into 27 indicators based

on the 2010 review study published by G.A. Tanguay et al. who reviewed studies

determining urban sustainability and identified 29 overall indicators that were

considered representative of sustainability (Gondor, 2013) The complete list of

categories, indicators, description, and unit of measure is found in Appendix A. The

results are as follows ("North American Sustainable Cities Scorecard," 2013):

1. San Francisco

2. Washington DC

3. Ottawa

4. Vancouver

5. Toronto

6. Boston

7. Seattle

8. Philadelphia

9. New York City

10. Calgary

11. Dallas

12. Chicago

13. Denver

14. Montreal

15. Miami

16. Houston

17. Atlanta

18. Phoenix

19. Los Angeles

20. Detroit

The organization does note that there are limitations associated with lists of this sort.

Specifically, they list three main limitations – data access, availability, and timeliness

(Gondor, 2013). I would add that the chosen cities add a restriction to the research even

before it begins as only large metropolitan areas were selected for analysis. It is possible

that smaller cities in the US are more sustainable but are not found on the list due to their

size.

Green City Index. The Green City Index (GCI) is produced by Siemens AG, a

German multinational corporation. Siemens is the largest engineering company in

Europe and has a division in Infrastructures and Cities in addition to the more traditional

understanding of the organization energy, healthcare, and industry ("Siemens At a

Glance," 2013). The organization produces and updates a Green City Index to look at the

metropolitan areas of the US and Canada. Report for the 2013 index is found

http://www.siemens.com/entry/cc/features/greencityindex_international/all/en/pdf/r

eport_northamerica_en.pdf

In order to ensure that the index is unbiased, Siemens developed the methodology

with the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) and is similar to the 2009 European Green

City Index, the 2010 Latin American Green City Index and the 2011 Asian Green City

Index (Jackson, 2011). There are thirty-one indicators in nine categories as shown in

Appendix B. The data for these categories was collected by the EIU from resources made

publicly available by official government agencies. Cities were then grouped by category

and compiled into an overall list. The list of overall rankings is below, again, where United

States cities are bolded. Additionally, because this research is focused on water, the water

portion of the index is just as important as the overall standings – see Table 3.1.

Just as with the CK list, this index has its own inherent limitation. Again, the list

only looks at the large US metropolises and does not consider smaller cities that may, in

fact, be more sustainable or include more sustainable water policy.

Table 3.1. Green City Index Overall and Water Rankings

Overall

Water

1. San Francisco

1. Calgary

2. Vancouver

2. Boston

3. New York City

4. Seattle

4. Minneapolis

5. Denver

5. San Francisco

6. Boston

6. Vancouver

7. Los Angeles

7. Denver

8. Washington DC

8. Ottawa

9. Toronto

9. Charlotte

10. Minneapolis

10. Toronto

11. Chicago

11. Seattle

12. Ottawa

12. Chicago

13. Philadelphia

13. Los Angeles

14. Calgary

14. Orlando

15. Sacramento

15. Houston

16. Houston

16. Dallas

17. Dallas

17. Miami

18. Orlando

18. Phoenix

19. Montreal

19. St. Louis

20. Charlotte

20. Sacramento

21. Atlanta

22. Miami

22. Pittsburgh

23. Pittsburgh

23. Philadelphia

24. Phoenix

24. Washington DC

25. Cleveland

26. St. Louis

26. Montreal

27. Detroit

* Adapted from Jackson 2011, Green City Index Report

STAR Communities. The STAR (Sustainability Tools for Assessing & Rating

Communities) System is “the first national certification program to recognize sustainable

communities. Local leaders use STAR to assess their sustainability, set targets for moving

forward, and measure progress along the way” ("The Rating System," 2014). The ranking

system is used by all sizes and types of cities to work towards sustainability. STAR

Community Systems focus on ten guiding principles (Communities, 2014).

1. Systemic thinking

2. Instill resiliency

3. Foster innovation

4. Redefine progress

5. Live within means

6. Cultivate collaboration

7. Ensure equity

8. Embrace diversity

9. Inspire leadership

10. Continuously improve

Using these guiding principles, the organization developed seven goal areas – built

environment, climate and energy, education, arts and community, economy and jobs,

equity and empowerment, health and safety, and natural systems ("STAR-Certified,"

2014). These goal areas are catalogued and ranked for each city and, after compilation

and scoring, the cities are given one to five stars, as shown in Table 3.2. The full list of

categories and rankings is listed in Appendix C ("STAR-Certified," 2014) and can be found

on their webpage http://www.starcommunities.org. In the case of these indices, unlike

the other lists, the cities are not chosen but rather the cities aim to join this list.

Table 3.2. STAR Community Rankings

5 Star

4 Star

3 Star

Northhampton, MA

Austin, TX

Albany, NY

Seattle, WA

Davenport, IA

Atlanta, GA

Evanston, IL

Chandler, AZ

Portland, OR

Cleveland, OH

Tacoma, WA

Des Moines, IA

Tucson, AZ

El Cerrito, CA

Washington, DC

Fayetteville, AR

Fort Collins, CO

Indianapolis, IN

*Adapted from STAR Communities list of STAR Certified Cities

National League of Cities – Sustainable Cities Institute. The National

League of Cities (NLC) is an organization that “is dedicated to helping city leaders build

better communities” ("About NLC," 2013). They do this by being a resource and advocate

for the cities which they represent. Specifically, cities, towns, and states pay a fee to

become a member of the NLC – this entitles them to member benefits which include, but

is not limited to; advocacy in the national government through lobbying, programs to

educate local leaders, leader networking, producing best practices for municipal

achievement, and media promotion for the city in question ("About NLC," 2013). One

specific aspect of the NLC is their Sustainable Cities Institute.

The Sustainable Cities Institute (SCI) works with the governments registered with

the NLC to assist in pursuing sustainability. The institute supplies cities with information

on sustainable procedure, and case studies showing best practices for cities. There are 23

cities, 22 of which are in the United States that use the institute’s resources and work

toward sustainable city planning. These cities constitute the next list used for site

selection. They have changed the webpage but the list can still be found on archived

webpage files.

1. Knoxville, TN

2. Flagstaff, AZ

3. Fayetteville, AR

4. Berkeley, CA

5. Los Angeles, CA

6. Pinecrest, FL

7. Indianapolis, IN

8. Debuque, IW

9. St. Paul, MN

10. Kansas City, MO

11. Cincinnati, OH

12. Cleveland, OH

13. Columbus, OH

14. Beaverton, OR

15. Portland, OR

16. Charleston, SC

17. Austin, TX

18. El Paso, TX

19. Salt Lake City, UT

20.Seattle, WA

21. Tacoma, WA

22. Madison WI

23. Montreal, Quebec, Canada

As with the prior section, these cities request to join the NLC and become a part of

the Sustainable Cities Institute by request rather than strictly by accomplishment. This

limits the results as it is again possible that cities who have not joined this Institute are

more sustainable than those that have joined.

Popular Science – America’s Greenest Cities. The Popular Science (PS)

magazine has been published since 1872, and received the American Society of Magazine

Editors Award for General Excellence in 2004 ("About Us," 2014; "Popular Science Wins

First National Magazine Award in General Excellence," 2004) The magazine focuses on

science and technology news and reviews. In 2008 the magazine took special interest in

America’s “Greenest Cities.” (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-

02/americas-50-greenest-cities). The journalists, Elizabeth Svoboda, Eric Mika, and

Saba Berhie, examined the sustainability of 50 US cities based on four areas of interest:

1. Electricity (10 points): Points for energy sourced from renewables as well as

for offering incentives for resident-purchased renewable energy sources.

2. Transportation (10 points): Higher scores go to cities whose worker-

commuters take public transportation or carpool.

3. Green living (5 points): Cities earn points for the number of LEED Certified

buildings, as well as for devoting area to green space.

4. Recycling and green perspective (5 points): This measures how

comprehensive a city's recycling program is and how important its citizens

consider environmental issues.

This list has the vaguest methodology and the most limitations in terms of

scientific accuracy because the categories measured are ambiguous and were compiled by

journalists as opposed to scientists. However, this viewpoint is a compelling addition

giving a more everyday perspective on what ‘sustainability’ represents.

City Selections

Cities that appeared on three or more of these lists were compiled into a potential

site list with approximate populations, listed in Table 3.4. It is important to note that

Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York were also on these list, but with populations

exceeding 2.7 million, the study of their policies is more akin to the analysis of a small

country rather than a city and were thus removed from the overall city list.

Table 3.3. Popular Science America's 50 Greenest Cities

Rank

City

Score

Rank

City

Score

Portland, OR

23.1

Tulsa, OK

16.7

San Francisco, CA

23.0

Rochester, NY

16.1

Boston, MA

22.7

Riverside, CA

16.0

Oakland, CA

22.5

Springfield, IL

15.7

Eugene, OR

22.4

Alexandria, VA

15.7

Cambridge, MA

22.2

St. Louis, MO

15.0

Berkeley, CA

22.2

Anchorage, AK

14.4

Seattle, WA

22.1

Athens-Clarke, GA

14.1

Chicago, IL

21.3

Amarillo, TX

14.0

Austin, TX

21.0

Kansas City, MO

13.8

Minneapolis, MN

20.3

Salt Lake City, UT

13.5

St. Paul, MN

20.2

Pasadena, CA

13.2

Sunnyvale, CA

19.9

Norwalk, CA

13.0

Honolulu, HI

19.9

Laredo, TX

12.9

Fort Worth, TX

19.7

Joliet, IL

12.0

Albuquerque, NM

19.1

Newport News, VA

11.9

Syracuse, NY

18.9

Louisville, KY

11.9

Huntsville, AL

18.4

Concord, CA

11.9

Denver, CO

18.2

Fremont, CA

11.3

New York, NY

18.2

Elizabeth, NJ

10.5

Irvine, CA

18.1

Livonia, MI

10.2

Milwaukee, WI

17.3

San Bernardino, CA

10.2

Santa Rosa, CA

17.2

Thousand Oaks, CA

10.2

Ann Arbor, MI

17.2

Stockton, CA

10.1

Lexington, KY

16.8

Greensboro, NC

10.0

* Adapted from Svoboda, Mika, and Berhie. America’s Greenest Cities. 2008

The next step used to determine appropriate research cities was to look at

‘control cities.’ To understand sustainable ideas in policy it is necessary to look at

policies considered sustainable as well as ‘typical’ or ‘traditional’ policies in order to

ensure that the discovered themes are what makes the policy sustainable. While this

research is not suggesting that the control cities are unsustainable or have made no

moves toward sustainability, they were considered more traditional than the sustainable

counterparts, making them a baseline for this study. Therefore, each of the sustainable

cities needs to have a ‘control city’ – a city in the same state with the same approximate

population, Table 3.5 shows the closest neighbor city for each sustainable city.

Table 3.4. Cities Found on 3 or More Sustainability Lists

Sustainable City

State

Population

On Lists:

Austin

864,407

NLC, STAR, PS

Boston

636,479

CK, GCI, PS

Denver

600,158

CK, GCI, PS

Indianapolis

844,220

CK, NLC, STARS

Minneapolis

392,880

CK, GCI, PS

Portland

603,106

CK, GCI, PS

San Francisco

805,235

CK, GCI, PS

Seattle

634,535

CK, NLC, GCI

Table 3.5. Potential Sustainable and Control Cities

Sustainable

City

Population

Control City

Population

Difference

Austin

864,407

Fort Worth

778,084

86,323

Boston

636,479

Worcester

182,669

453,810

Denver

600,158

Colorado Springs

416,427

183,731

Indianapolis

844,220

Fort Wayne

254,555

589,665

Minneapolis

392,880

St. Paul

290,770

102,110

Portland

603,106

Eugene

157,986

445,120

San Francisco

805,235

San Jose

945,942

140,707

Seattle

634,535

Spokane

209,525

425,010

Some of these ‘control cities’ were not close enough to meet the needs of this

study, specifically those with a large population difference. Sizable gaps in population

presents too big of a discrepancy to accurately compare the policies of the cities on a

like-to-like basis. That eliminated the cities marked in red in Table 3.5. Additionally,

Minneapolis/St. Paul was eliminated as possible research locations because St. Paul was

featured in two of the five sustainability lists, this grouping is marked in blue. When

these cities were removed, the italicized cities, Austin/Fort Worth and San

Francisco/San Jose remained as the most ideal research sites. To fully understand the

water policy of a city it is also necessary to consider the policies of the state. Therefore,

in addition to examination of the city policy, this dissertation also looked at the state

policy of Texas and California.

Procedure

The implementation of a case study analysis was the most logical method for

reviewing water policy in the neighbor city groups as it gave me, as the researcher, the

freedom to explore originally unintended, yet related, lines of interest while still

maintaining a framework in which to operate. To guarantee that the research findings

contributed to the field without being compromised by methodological concerns, the

core shape of the case study was molded from Crabbé and Leroy’s book, The Handbook

of Environmental Policy Evaluation (2008). Not only did this resource provide insight

into the essentials of a case study, but the materials focused specifically on

environmental policy evaluation which is consistent with my study. However, Crabbé

and Leroy did not concentrate on policy research in the field of sustainability. This is an

important distinction because the practice of sustainability, as shown in the literature

review, has historically fluctuated with new information and understandings – so too

must the policy in place have this heuristic capability. As such, it was essential to view

the water policy from a more flexible and interdisciplinary approach than that listed by

Crabbé and Leroy (2008). Therefore, the final research included three broad steps that

fall in line with Crabbé and Leroy’s methodology but were adapted to represent better

the interdisciplinary needs of sustainable thought; specifically, the addition of a policy

theme index and key informant interviews.

Data Collection

The data for Austin, Fort Worth, Texas, San Francisco, and San Jose were

housed, compiled, analyzed, and maintained using Atlas.ti 7 software for qualitative

analysis. The use of Atlas.ti 7 ensures that all data in one location and allowed for inter-

data source coding which permitted the researcher to connect sustainability themes

within and between policy. California does not provide PDF documents for download, so

those codes and plans were not able to be housed within Atlas.ti. The process for

determining the policies gathered is listed in Step One of the procedure section below.

Methods Steps

The research was completed in three steps:

1. Collected current water policy documents for each city.

2. Created and maintained an index for each policy for each city where the

sustainable themes of that policy (Table 3.7) were identified and cataloged.

3. Performed key informant interviews.

Step One

I needed first to collect the water codes and plans for each study city and each

state. All cities and states, except California, list and update their water policy, and,

indeed, all their code of ordinances, through the Municode Library

(www.municode.com). To ensure that the most recent and accurate documents were

used, all files for the research cities and Texas were directly downloaded from the

Municode Library. They were available via PDF download and were then imported into

Atlas.ti 7 for analysis. California does not follow this process. It only stores state plans

on its servers and web pages and does not allow for PDF download without paying a

cost-prohibitive fee. Therefore, California’s codes and plans were analyzed directly on

the website, using the same process as the Atlas.ti 7 PDFs. Table 3.6 shows each of the

collected codes and plans, listed by location.

Step Two

Once the policies were compiled the next step was analysis. Previous work by

scholars in this field (Brown et al., 1987; Feldman, 2010; Gleick, 1998; Goodland, 1995;

Kuhlman & Farrington, 2010; Meindl, 2011; Sedjo, 2008; Sen, 2000; Shabman, 2008)

have included several conceptions of sustainability themes that should be present in

water policy for that policy to be sustainable. I compiled these themes into one index by

first dividing them into the three traditional pillars - social, economic, and

environmental sustainability. Then, these main pillars were divided into sub-sections

specific to each pillar. Social sustainability was broken into quality of life, democratic

water decisions, and pricing. Economic sustainability was divided into scarcity of

resources and government approach. Environmental sustainability was separated into

reduced human impact and ecosystem function. Finally, these subcategories were

further divided into themes to ensure that all aspects of sustainability were represented.

This was the starting point of the research (See Table 3.7). To operationalize the basic

sustainability pillars list, a metric, description, and keywords were added thus, creating

the conceptual framework (Table 3.8 – 3.10).

Table 3.6. Codes and Plans by City and State

Texas

California

 Agricultural Code

 Auxiliary Water Law

 Natural Resources Code

 Parks & Wildlife Code

 Transportation Code

 Utilities Code

 Water Code

 Water for Texas 2012 State Water Plan

 Fish & Game Code

 Public Resources Code

 Utilities Code

 Water Code

 Water Plan

Austin

San Francisco

 Land Development Code

 Environmental Criteria Manual

 Environmental Control and Conservation Manual

 Utilities Criteria Manual

 Drainage Criteria Manual

 Utility Profile & Water Conservation Plan

 Building Code

 Environmental Code

 Health Code

 Plumbing Code

 Public Works Code

 Urban Water Management Plan

Fort Worth

San Jose

 Building Code

 Environmental Protection & Compliance Code

 Public Utilities Code

 Water & Sewer Code

 Drought Contingency & Emergency Water

Management Plan

 Lake Worth Code

 Health & Sanitation Code

 Plumbing Code

 Building & Construction Code

 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan

 Health and Safety Code

 Public Works & Improvements Code

 Public Utilities Code

All codes and plans were held to this final matrix to determine which of the

themes has become a part of water policy. First, the keywords were entered into the

Atlast.ti 7 system so that the program would find all mention of those words. Second, I

manually searched each document for additional wording that still met the metric but

did not include a specific keyword. Sections of policy that match these metrics were

coded in Atlas.ti 7, listed by what section, sub-section and field to which it relates. For

example, when a policy discussed conservation of water resources, that section of the

policy would be coded Economic / Scarcity of Resources/ Conservation.

Step Three

To gain additional insight into the sustainability of each city’s policy, the final

step of the data collection process involved interviews with key informants in each city.

The purpose of the interviews was to corroborate the information gleaned from city

policy analysis in steps one and two. Each research city has a form of water board or

committee whose responsibilities included creating and adapting water policy. These

people had direct contact with the policy itself, not - as discussed in the previous

sections - the implementation of that policy or overall water management. Specifically,

the researcher requested interviews with a member of each city’s water board or

commission. This approach ensured that the interviewed individuals were

knowledgeable about the water policy of the city and had a vested interest in the

outcome of policy creation.

To ethically carry out these interviews, I applied for, and received IRB number 00018766.

Then, the interviews were conducted via phone and were recorded with permission. Each

interview consisted of a round of key questions used to establish the individual’s

understanding of sustainability and the city’s requirements for sustainability in policy.

Follow-up questions addressed the results of that city’s policy analysis. Because

each city involves different analysis outcomes, general key questions were created, as

listed below. The interview protocol was, therefore, semi-structured and used the key

questions as an interview guide as each city presented its own host of discussion topics

that were determined after data analysis.

General Key Questions:

1. What is your understanding of the term ‘sustainability?’

2. How do you feel sustainability relates to water in your city?

3. Does the city require that any new policy include sustainable concepts or

themes? Do you think there should be a requirement?

4. How, in your experience, are sustainability concepts or themes

implemented in water policy?

5. On a scale of 1 -10 (1 being the least, 10 the most) do you feel your city is

sustainable when considering water and water policy? What steps do you

think the city needs to take to reach a 10 – if you think the city is a 10,

what makes you feel that way?

Quality of Life

Meet Basic Human Need

Maintain Human Safety

Maintain Human Health

Reliable Service

Deomcratic Water

Decisions

Government Participation

Community Participation

Available Data Resources

Pricing

Equitable Distribution

Socially Just

Scarcity of Resources

Conservation

Reuse

Anticipate Future Need

Government Approach

Coordinate Surface/

Ground Water

Management

Institutional Organization

to Prevent/Solve Water

Conflict

Find/Use Non-traditional

Water Sources

Reduce Human Impact

Restrict Groundwater

Pumping

Relax Current Control of

Waterways

Reduce Pollutant Impact

Ecosystem Function

Maintain/Restore Healthy

Ecosystem Function

Protect Potential Natural

Resources

Maintain/ Restore River

Flow and Lake Levels

Table 3.7. Basic Sustainability Pillars

* Compiled from Brown et al., 1987; Feldman, 2010; Gleick, 1998; Goodland, 1995; Kuhlman & Farrington, 2010;

Meindl, 2011; Sedjo, 2008; Sen, 2000; Shabman, 2008

Table 3.8. Social Pillar Conceptual Framework

Metric

Description & Keywords

Quality of Life

Meet Basic Human

Need

500 to 100 liters of water, per

person, per day

Listed by the WHO as ‘sufficient’ water for

basic need. Gleick (1998) suggests a

minimum of 50 liters per person, per day.

Maintain Human

Safety

Planned steps in case of

purification failure or water

shortage

Keywords: failure plan, secondary water

source, back up, emergency supply

Maintain Human

Health

Additional water quality

standards above national

regulations.

US regulations list minimum water quality

standards. Sustainability policy will also

include standards specific to the region.

Standards for separate uses

including potable, non-potable,

and ecological

Policy should develop lower water quality

criteria for industrial, commercial, or

landscaping purposes as well as water

criteria for ecological water use.

Reliable Service

Water systems are reliable for the

given region where reliability is

understood as systems that

enable basic human need to be

met.

Keywords: diverse water source, supply

portfolio, reliability

Democratic Water Decisions

Government

Participation

Verbiage that denotes integrated

decision making from all

pertinent staff and government

agencies within the region.

Holistic decision making is key to long-term

sustainability. Sustainable policy should

include requirements for a coordinated

approach among all agencies.

Keywords: inter-government, inter-agency

cooperation

Community

Participation

Language that mandates wide-

scale public participation

throughout the surrounding areas

and community.

Keywords: public meeting, open discussion,

hearing, democratic

Available Data

Resources

Data resources are required to be

available to the public in a timely

manner

Water systems can only be democratic if

collected data unrestrictedly made available.

Keywords: database access, research

request, data collection report

Pricing

Equitable

Distribution

Wording that suggests that water

for domestic, urban, industrial, or

agricultural use is not allocated

disproportionately and still allow

for basic need to be met.

Keywords: equitable, apportionment,

priority use, distribution

Socially Just

Water systems are available to

individuals in all economic

standings and the system does

not put undue stress on individual

citizens

Keywords: accessibility, affordability,

socially fitting

Table 3.9. Economic Pillar Conceptual Framework

Metric

Description & Keywords

Scarcity of Resources

Conservation

Requirements for reduced water use to

ensure the renewability of water resources

Keywords: reduced use,

conservation, water use

management

Reuse

Requirements for reuse of water in

agriculture, industry, business, and

residential setting where applicable and

appropriate in all types of water use.

Keywords: reuse, repurpose,

reinvest, remodel water systems,

over pumping

Anticipate Future

Needs

Verbiage that reflects government

understanding of water as a limited

resource and the longer-term viability of

the current system.

Keywords: future water resources,

additional resource supply

Government Approach

Coordinate Surface/

Groundwater

Management and

Storage Systems

Wording that shows government attempt

to enhance coordination of ground and

surface water systems.

Keywords: holistic, coordinated

management, coordinated use,

combined yield

Institutional

Organization to

Prevent/ Solve Water

Conflict

Plan or action items to create a

government agency to prevent or resolve

water conflict

Keywords: treaty management,

oversight, committee, conflict

resolution

Non-Traditional

Water Sources

Verbiage that relates to the finding,

management, and use of water sources

that reduce pressure on traditional supply

Keywords: source evaluation,

source feasibility, technology

advancement, non-traditional

Research Questions

Answering questions about the specifics of sustainability is necessary to ensure the

long-term success of sustainability goals. To ensure that the management of water is

sustainable from its inception, an understanding of sustainable water policy is essential.

It is known that policy predicates management. However, there has been a lack of

research into what makes a water policy sustainable. This research attempts to bridge that

gap by establishing if the sustainability themes suggested by scholars have been

implemented into water purification policy. Researchers like Dovers (1996) and Gleick

(1998) have listed criteria or themes that ‘should’ be present in sustainable water policy.

The first question, then, is whether these concepts have been implemented in policy after

nearly twenty years – and are they, indeed, standards for sustainability?

Several US cities are actively working towards implementing sustainability within

their governmental operations. Of these, Austin and San Francisco are most active in

sustainability. This study looked at these two cities and two ‘control’ cities. The second

question is whether the water policies in sustainable cities will have sustainability themes

found within the conceptual framework in greater quantities than the control cities.

Table 3.10. Environmental Pillar Conceptual Framework

Metric

Description & Keywords

Reduce Human Impact

Restricted

Groundwater

Pumping

Language that shows an understanding

of the influence of groundwater pumping

on aquifer storage and water security,

and begins/continues to reduce

drawdown.

Keywords: reduced groundwater use,

permit, permit evaluation process,

administrative permit.

Relaxed Control of

Waterways

Terminology that begins/continues

process of removing or minimizing

manmade impacts on waterways

Keywords: dredging, dam,

reclamation, sedimentation, canal

Reduced Pollutant

Impact

Language that ensures that water

systems are not knowingly impacted by

additional materials in the water system.

Keywords: discharge, runoff,

fertilizer, damaged

Ecosystem Function

Maintains/ Restores

Healthy Ecosystem

Function

Wording that shows plans to restore or

maintain human-impacted ecosystems in

the local area. Includes restoration

programs, springs management plans, or

reduced human impact on nature activity

locations.

Keywords: preserve, wetland

protection, riparian protection,

restoration plan, reduced

social/human activity

Protect Potential

Natural Resources

Language that shows an understanding

of the value of natural resources and

works to protect current and prospective

resources.

Keywords: resource management,

species protection, resource

vulnerability

Maintain/Restore

River Flow and Lake

Levels

Understandings that water bodies need a

minimum amount of water to meet basic

needs of the ecosystem.

Gleick states that there is little

agreement about exactly how much

water is required for an ecosystem but

that decisions must still be made to

respect ecosystem need.

Keywords: minimum flow

requirements, adaptive modeling for

human need and climate variation,

seasonal fluctuation

In summary, the methods behind this research first involved creating a

conceptual framework of what sustainable policy should include, based on the literature

review. Then that framework was applied to the water-related codes and plans of Austin,

Fort Worth, San Francisco, San Jose, Texas, and California to answer the two main

research questions. Finally, water board members were interviewed to gain a broader

understanding of sustainability within the chosen cities and states. The next six

chapters describe the sustainability themes found in Texas state, Austin, and Fort

Worth, followed by California state, San Francisco, and San Jose. Then results are

analyzed and pulled together in Chapter 10.

CHAPTER FOUR:

SYNOPSIS OF APPLICABLE WATER POLICY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS

To understand city policy sustainability, one must also understand state

requirements, water rights, and the location of the cities within the state (Figure 4.1).

First, a general look at the water rights of the state. Typically, groundwater in Texas

belongs to the landowners and is governed by the rule of capture, granting landowners

the right to pump any and all of the water underneath their property. The water obtained

in this manner can be used or sold as private property. This power extends to all water

that landowners can pump from below their land. There are only a few exceptions to this

Absolute Owners Rule. First, landowners cannot willfully pump water for the sole purpose

of injuring an adjoining landowner. Second, landowners cannot waste artesian water by

allowing it to run off their land and percolate back into the water table. Third, landowners

cannot unlawfully pollute groundwater. Finally, no pumping can occur if there are land

subsidence or surface injuries result from over pumping (University, 2014)

In contrast, surface water belongs to the state of Texas and is only useable by the

landowner with expressed permission. This permission is based on two doctrines, the

riparian and prior appropriation doctrines. The Riparian doctrine states that landowners

have the right to use the surface water if the use is reasonable and does not reduce other

owners’ abilities to meet their needs. To use the surface water in this way, landowners

must own land specifically adjacent to the water. The prior appropriation doctrine,

contrastingly, is controlled by statute, not land ownership. This means that water rights

are given based on a citizen permit request. In 1967, the Texas legislature combined the

Riparian and Prior Appropriation doctrines into the Water Rights Adjudication Act

stating “any person claiming a riparian water right to file a claim for the right with the

Texas Water Commission,” thus claiming a ‘water right’ (Texas A&M University, 2014)

Figure 4.1. Location of Texas Cities

*Map cartographer: Stefen David

State policy will influence local, city policy simply because those cities must meet

or exceed state mandated requirements for water use. To best understand the way city

water policy implements the sustainability themes it is necessary to be aware of the state

level sustainability influences. Unlike the in-depth analysis of the city policy, this section

presents a summation of specific instances of the state’s influence on city water policy.

Texas Water Policies

There are seven codes and one plan that included water-related regulations for the

state of Texas. All of these regulations cover water within state limits. The codes were all

found within the state’s code of ordinances. The State Water Plan, on the other hand, was

enacted by the Texas Water Development Board.

1. Agriculture Code: establishes the Department of Agriculture and other

agricultural organizations, describes agricultural research and promotional

activities, states the production, processing, and sale requirements for horticulture

and animal products, and lists the requirements for water and soil conservation.

2. Auxiliary Water Law: covers the use of state water in addition to water control

and conservation districts.

3. Natural Resource Code: contains rules for the disposition of public lands,

utilization and maintenance of beaches and dunes, regulations for oil and gas

production as well as coal and uranium mining, and parameters for resource use

and wetland mitigation.

4. Parks and Wildlife Code: creates the Parks and Wildlife Department, and

contains requirements for local and state parks, as well as wildlife and plant

conservation.

5. Transportation Code: includes requirements for aviation, railways, roadways,

and vehicles, also contains regulations for waterways and ports.

6. Utilities Code: covers rules for electric, telecommunications, gas, and water

utilities and the delivery of those utility services.

7. Water Code: contains information on water rights and development, interstate

river compacts, groundwater management, and water quality controls.

8. Water for Texas 2012 State Water Plan: plan includes projected population

demands, water supply needs, water management strategies, and policy

recommendations.

Overall Results

Table 4.1 shows the results of the analysis of Texas water policies. Again, this is

not an in-depth analysis of the sustainability of state policy, rather this is a look at

instances within state policy that require sustainability at the city level. The numbers

through each column represent the frequency with which each theme was present in all

policy. The total frequency of each theme is listed at the bottom of the table. Each theme

was found in at least one policy, although it is noticeable how few themes were found

overall. However, the Transportation Code only contained one theme - reduced pollutant

impact. Equitable distribution was located solely in the Water Code with no other

representation in any of the other state policies.

Table 4.1. Texas State Matrix Results

Theme

Agriculture Code

Auxiliary Water

Law

Natural

Resources Code

Parks and

Wildlife Code

Transportation

Code

Utilities Code

Water Code

State Water Plan

SOCIAL

Quality of Life

Meets Basic Human Need

Maintain Human Safety

Maintain Human Health

Reliable Service

Democratic Water Decisions

Government Participation

Community Participation

Available Data Resources

Pricing

Equitable Distribution

Socially Just

ECONOMIC

Scarcity of Resources

Conservation

Reuse

Anticipate Future Need

Government Approach

Coordinate Surface/Ground Water

Management

Organizations for Water Conflict

Non-Traditional Water Sources

ENVIRONMENTAL

Reduce Human Impact

Restrict Groundwater Pumping

Relax Control of Waterways

Reduce Pollutant Impacts

Ecosystem Function

Restore/ Maintain Healthy

Ecosystem Function

Protect Potential Natural Resources

Restore/ Maintain River Flow & Lake

Levels

Total Frequency

Social Pillar: Theme Findings

Human Need

It appears that cities, rather than the state, bear the responsibility for ensuring that

citizens have access to enough water to meet human need. While the Water Code makes

no mention of making sure water needs are met, it does state that when appropriating

state water it must be done as follows; domestic and municipal use, agricultural and

industrial use, mining and the recovery of minerals, hydroelectric power, navigation,

recreation and pleasure, and then other beneficial uses. The Water Code goes on to state

that water for sustaining human and domestic animal lives is to remain superior to all

other forms of water use.

Human Safety

The theme lists that there must be planned steps in case of water purification

failure or shortage. The Water Code maintains that the state commission may grant an

emergency permit, order, or amendment if an emergency condition exists which presents

an impending threat to public health and safety. This ensures that if there is a condition

where a city cannot provide adequate water services, the state can grant emergency water

permits. Along this vein, the Water Code continues asserting if a water utility is affected

during an emergency it must ensure that emergency operations of the water system

during an extended power outage be engaged as soon as is safe and practicable during a

natural disaster. Both requirements directly influence the utility services of each city

within the state of Texas.

Human Health

There are two clear instances of state policy directly affecting city ordinances. First,

it is the policy of the state, per the Natural Resources Code, to protect the ground and

surface water of the state from degradation and to protect public health, welfare, and

property. To do this, the Water Code declares that the state must hold public meetings at

regional offices to allow municipalities to submit data or comments for all proposed

drinking water standards.

Second, the Texas Water Commission is also responsible for implementing water quality

management functions within the state. These functions are oriented on a watershed

basis. The commission must coordinate the water quality responsibilities of river

authorities within each watershed and shall delegate these functions to local

governments.

Government Participation

This theme recognizes the importance of interagency cooperation to address the

complicated puzzle that is water rights and access. Three Texas policies relate to the

cooperation between agencies. First, the Agriculture Code states that the policy shall not

prevent a city, town, or county from reaching or maintaining compliance with federal or

state environmental standard requirements. A city, town, or county may take actions

otherwise prohibited by the Agriculture Code to comply with federal or state standards,

to avoid federal or state fines, or to attain federal or state environmental standards.

Second, per the Parks and Wildlife Code, the state parks department in

conjunction with the state land office shall develop and adopt a State Wetlands

Conservation Plan for state-owned coastal wetlands. The Texas Natural Resources

Conservation Commission, along with other state agencies and local governments must

assist in developing and implementing the plan. The plan must include a policy

framework for achieving the no-overall-net-loss of state-owned coastal wetlands.

Third, the Water Code declares that the state recognizes the importance of

implementing an estuary management plan to protect and improve the water quality of

the region. The code goes on to confirm that state and local government participation in

these estuary plans is essential to protect natural resources that serve a public use and

benefit. Ultimately, the state agencies recognize the prerogatives of local government and

the inviolability of property rights and it is the local government’s choice to participate in

or withdraw from an estuary management plan.

Community Participation

Only one section connects to the local governments to community contribution

and involvement and it relates to public education. The Natural Resources Code shows

that the state land office is responsible for and must coordinate with local governments

to increase public awareness about erosion. The public education must include the causes

and consequences of erosion, the importance of barrier islands, dunes, and bays as a

natural defense against hurricanes or strong storms, and erosion avoidance techniques.

Available Data Resources

The one mention of local governments and ensuring data are accessible to the

public is in the Coastal Erosion Public Awareness Campaign. It includes a requirement

that the commissioner of the campaign makes historical erosion data accessible to the

public. Data must be collected and cataloged by the Bureau of Economic Geology, coastal

counties, and coastal municipal governments.

Socially Just

Per the Water Code, the utility commission’s regulatory authority must make sure

that every rate made or received by a utility is just and reasonable. Indeed, rates must not

be unreasonably preferential, prejudicial, or discriminatory and must be consistent in

application to each class of consumer. Utilities that serve two or more municipalities are

considered a single entity for purposes of safeguarding reasonable rates.

Environmental Pillar: Theme Results

Conservation

The State Water Plan requires that all retail public utilities conduct a water loss

audit on an annual basis, rather than every five years. This plan also states that the total

per capita water use was assumed to reduce over time due to the required installation of

water-efficient plumbing fixtures, including shower heads, toilets, and faucets as made

mandatory in the Texas Water Saving Performance Standards for Plumbing Fixtures Act.

These fixtures are to be installed as old ones fail and require replacements.

The powers and duties of the Water Conservation Council listed in the Water Code

include monitoring trends in water conservation implementation, monitoring the

effectiveness of statewide water conservation public awareness programs, implementing

a public recognition program for water conservation, and oversee the implementation of

water conservation strategies of regional water plans.

The Water Code requires water conservation plans for all municipalities. This plan

must include specific, quantifiable five- and ten-year water saving targets. Targets must

include goals for water loss programs and goals for municipal use in gallons per capita

per day. The conservation plan must also include drought contingency strategies that are

appropriate to the municipality’s region. The code states that tracking water use over time

is vital to ensuring that conservation plans are functioning effectively. To make sure that

all cities track water the same way the Water Conservation Advisory Council and the State

Water Board must develop a uniform, consistent methodology and guidance for

calculating water use and conservation. At a minimum, this guidance must include the

following features:

 Method for calculating total water consumption including water billed and

nonrevenue water utilized by each sector of water users

 Method for calculating total water used in gallons per capita per day

 Method for classifying water users within sectors

 Method for calculating water use in the residential sector to include both single-

family and multifamily residences

 Method for calculating water use in agricultural, industrial, commercials and

institutional sectors

The Water Code continues to state that water resources management, drought planning,

and water conservation should occur on an ongoing basis, not on an as-needed basis.

Finally, the Code states that any public or private entity can enter an agreement with a

river authority to become a part of the river authority’s conservation program. Those

entities that enter this agreement receive the benefits from that program but must comply

with all the conservation requirements.

Reuse

The only direct remark that connected the city to state policy is found in the State

Water Plan. This plan defines rainwater harvesting as the capture and storage of

precipitation for landscape irrigation, drinking, domestic use, or aquifer recharge. The

reuse of rainwater helps to reduce outdoor water demands on potable water systems. The

state notes that while this reuse is often a part of municipal water conservation program,

rainwater harvesting is not recommended as a water management strategy to meet water

needs of the community since the volume of water collected varies during drought

conditions.

Environmental Pillar: Theme Results

Reduced Pollutant Impact

The state declares in the Natural Resources Code that the protection of water

against pollution is in the public’s interest. Additionally, the Water Code affirms that it is

the public policy of the state to provide for the conservation and development of its forests

and water. To do this, the Water Code includes the state water pollution control revolving

fund which is created to provide financial assistance to political subdivisions specifically

for the construction of treatment works to protect from nonpoint source pollution. The

‘Don’t Mess with Texas’ program also enables local governments to work with the state

commission to establish a toll-free hotline for tips associated with illegal dumping that

affects surface waters.

A large section of the Water Code involves specific water pollution control duties

of the city. The city may establish a water pollution control and abatement program and

must employ or retain an ‘adequate’ number of personnel to fulfill the duties associated

with this program. The city’s plan must encompass the entire city and needs to include

the following subjects:

 The development and maintenance of an inventory of all substantial waste

discharges into or adjacent to water bodies within the city

 The regular monitoring of those waste discharges

 The collection of samples and periodic inspections of those discharges to ensure

compliance

 A clear procedure for obtaining compliance by the discharger being monitored

 The development of reasonable plans for controlling or abating pollution resulting

from the discharge of nonpoint source pollution.

The city may contract with a river authority or other political subdivision to meet the plan

requirements. Furthermore, the city can request assistance by the state commission for

the identifying and obtaining of funds and assistance to perform the required services and

functions.

Restore/Maintain Healthy Ecosystem Function

There were two instances where the state policies included requirements for city

policy. First, the state recognizes the importance of a statewide estuary management

program to protect and improve the surface water quality and to restore habitats to make

bays and estuaries more productive. However, the state also recognizes the rights of local

governments and makes no attempt to usurp those rights through this program. The city

can participate or withdraw from this estuary management plan at the sole discretion of

the city government and is subject only to the financial obligations that the city has

already committed. Second, municipalities have the power granted under the Water Code

to adopt any ordinance needed to control or decrease nonpoint source water pollution.

Unrepresented Themes

Ten sustainability themes were not represented within Texas’ codes and plans.

Two of these themes were from the social pillar, four from the economic pillar, and four

from the environmental pillar.

 Reliable Service

 Equitable Distribution

 Anticipate Future Needs

 Coordinate Surface and Groundwater Management

 Institutional Organization to Prevent/Solve Water Conflict

 Find/Use Non-traditional Water Sources

 Restrict Groundwater Pumping

 Relax Control of Waterways

 Protect Potential Natural Resources

 Maintain/Restore River Flow and Lake Levels

Most intriguingly, when considering those unrepresented themes is the lack of any

state requirements for cities to coordinate surface and groundwater management. Texas’

groundwater is handled entirely differently than surface water. Texas follows the rule of

capture doctrine stating that landowners have the right to seize all water from beneath

that land. Texas is the only western state that continues to follow this rule, so because of

this, there are statewide groundwater commissions and regulations but no requirements

for city regulations. Additionally, according to the State Water Plan, there is a shift from

a reliance on groundwater for drinking to a reliance on surface water. However, even with

this change, none of the water policies of Texas require cities to restrict groundwater

pumping or to find and use non-traditional water sources.

Now that the state sustainability themes which impact local governments have been

established, the research can move towards the cities themselves. Within the state of

Texas, the study focuses on Austin and Fort Worth as the sustainable and control cities,

respectively. First is the examination of Austin’s codes and plans.

CHAPTER FIVE:

WATER POLICY RESULTS FOR AUSTIN, TX.

Austin was chosen as one of the two sustainable cities for this research. This

chapter will provide a broad overview of the city itself and the codes and plans that control

water in the city, then present the overall results from the research. Finally, the specifics

about each theme present within the policies is discussed in detail. Please note that parts

of this chapter are taken from David and Tobin, 2016 “Addressing the Sustainability of

Austin, Texas, Water Policy” Papers in Applied Geography 2.1 pp 96-104.

City Information, Policies and Overall Results

Austin, the capital of Texas is located along a bend in the Colorado River as shown

in Figure 5.1 which outlines Austin’s boundaries and includes water features and

elevation. As the city grew, it became home to a variety of demographics and cultures. In

2010 there were 864,407 residents and an estimated 885,400 residents in 2013,

representing 9.2 percent increase in population during that time. The city is 297.90

square miles, making population density 2,653.20 people per square mile. ("Austin (city),

Texas," 2013). Austin’s climate is classified as humid subtropical, characterized by hot

summers and mild winters. Austin averages 33 inches of rain per year ("Austin Climate

Summary," 2011). As discussed in chapter three, the city was found on three of the five

sustainable cities lists – STAR (Sustainability Tools for Assessing & Rating Communities)

Systems, National League of Cities – Sustainable Cities Institute, and the Popular Science

America’s Greenest Cities, making it an ideal candidate for this study.

Figure 5.1. Austin City Limits and Water

* Cartographer: Stefen David

Austin, Texas has one code, four manuals, and one plan that involve the water systems

within the city.

 Land Development Code: Found in the Austin code of ordinances, this code

details all aspects of development within the city.

 Environmental Criteria Manual: Guidelines and criteria for addressing water

quality management, landscaping, storage of hazardous waste, and the

preservation of natural areas.

 Environmental Control and Conservation Manual: this manual covers the

protection of air quality and the conservation of water and habitats.

 Utilities Criteria Manual: This covers all of Austin’s utilities, specifically

focusing on energy, water, wastewater, and the coordination of those utilities

within the city limits.

 Drainage Criteria Manual: This manual covers all aspects of drainage within

the city including storm drains, stormwater management, culverts, and street flow.

 Utility Profile and Water Conservation Plan: The Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality required the implementation of a plan that must include

data associated with conservation and drought responses.

Each document was analyzed to determine which sustainable themes were present using

the matrix and scale created for this research. The findings for individual themes are

described in this chapter while the overall matrix ranking is shown in Table 5.1. The

numbers in the table represent the frequency in which the theme was found in each policy.

Along the bottom of the table there is a row for total points out of 21, one point given for

each theme present in the policy itself. This is connected to the overall percentage of

sustainability for each policy in Austin.

Table 5.1. Austin Matrix Results

Theme

Land

Development

Code

Environmental

Criteria

Manual

Environmental

Control &

Conservation

Manual

Utilities

Criteria

Manual

Drainage

Criteria

Manual

Water

Conservation

Plan

TOTALS

SOCIAL

Quality of Life

Meets Basic Human Need

Maintain Human Safety

Maintain Human Health

Reliable Service

Democratic Water Decisions

Government Participation

Community Participation

Available Data Resources

Pricing

Equitable Distribution

Socially Just

ECONOMIC

Scarcity of Resources

Conservation

Reuse

Anticipate Future Need

Government Approach

Coordinate Surface/Ground Water

Management

Organizations for Water Conflict

Non-Traditional Water Sources

ENVIRONMENTAL

Reduce Human Impact

Restrict Groundwater Pumping

Relax Control of Waterways

Reduce Pollutant Impacts

Ecosystem Function

Restore/ Maintain Healthy Function

Protect Potential Natural Resources

Restore/ Maintain River Flow & Lake

Levels

Total Points (out of 21)

Total in Percentage

71%

52%

14%

24%

52%

86%

Total in Frequency

251

Social Pillar: Theme Findings

Meets Basic Human Need

According to Table 3.8 (page 43) this theme states that city policy should reflect the

need for humans to have sufficient water for basic need, listed between 50 to 100 liters

(or 13 to 27 gallons) of water, per person, per day. Austin documents require numbers

well above the listed targets as it is stated in the Utilities Criteria Manual that the average

daily demand is 200 gallons/person/day (GPCD). The Manual lists five different

requirements for water availability:

 Daily demand: 200/GPCD

 Peak daily demand: 530/GPCD

 Peak hour demand: 900/GPCD

 Storage requirements: 200/gal/person

 Average wastewater flow: 245/gal/day

The only other mention of human need within Austin’s policies occurred in the Land

Development Code. It maintains that development should not endanger a water supply,

water supply system, a storm, or sanitary sewer system. This suggests that the city of

Austin is aware of the requirements for human need and insists that development avoids

disruption of those services.

While this relates specifically to the reduction of daily water use and not to the

availability of water for human need, as described in this section, Austin’s Water

Conservation Plan also included goals for reduced water consumption and has set that

target for 140 gallons per person per day by 2020. The Water Conservation Plan stated

that the current baseline is 162 GPCD with the historical 5-year average listed as 149.

Therefore, the Utilities Criteria Manual required a higher amount of available water than

the average Austin resident need on a daily basis and far greater than the UN-suggested

daily water need.

Maintain Human Safety

The description of maintaining human safety recommends that policy should have

steps or plans in place in case of a purification failure or water shortage (see Table 3.8).

However, upon review of the policies in place, Austin implemented the concepts of human

safety differently where, in almost every instance, the policy reflected safety from water

instead of the safety of the water. The only instance of human safety that matched the

given description is found in the Land Development Code. It required that, to prevent

danger to public safety, the city manager may approve water and/or wastewater utility

services to those areas outside the standard boundary of the water district.

All three instances of human safety cataloged from the Environmental Criteria

Manual are related to the need to manage floodplains to protect the citizens from flood

impacts. Additionally, the Land Development Code also included two requirements that

convey the need to control the impacts of flooding. The Drainage Criteria Manual offers a

final difference between actual policy and the matrix description. It requires that all

drainage work structures be inaccessible to children to prevent any possible harm because

the sites are often used as places to play.

Maintain Human Health

There are two different sections of this theme. The first states that there should be

water quality standards that exceed federal standards as well as standards that are

developed specific to the region. The second section submits that cities should have

separate water use standards for potable, non-potable, and ecological water. Review of

Austin’s policy showed that this theme had the third highest occurrence with 31 instances

throughout all policy. The categorization of these two sections of human health is listed,

by policy, below in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2. Human Health Standards in Austin, TX

Human Health

LDC

ECM

ECCM

UCM

DCM

UPWCP

Totals

Quality Standards

Potable Water Standards

Totals

Three aspects of water quality appeared in the policy. The first relates to

construction and the need to ensure that the quality of water does not deteriorate during

the development of the city. This variation of the theme was found almost exclusively in

the Land Development Code and the Environmental Criteria Manual. The Land

Development Code discusses the need to protect water quality at a construction site. The

Environmental Criteria Manual had a more broad-spectrum representation of

maintaining human health. Three of the instances in the Environmental Criteria Manual

also revolve around water quality and development; the policy required an on-site

environmental project manager that is responsible for the adherence to a quality control

plan.

The second aspect to water quality involved required quality zones. The

Environmental Criteria Manual required that all critical water areas be a part of a ‘Water

Quality Zone’ where the city enforces more rigorous rules than in other sectors. These

water quality zones include the entire Barton Springs watershed and areas where

impervious surfaces are greater than 20% in rural areas and larger than 5,000 square feet

in urban districts. The Utilities Criteria Manual’s only requirement including human

health relates to these quality zones – wastewater lines are prohibited in critical water

zones unless otherwise permitted.

The final facet of water quality is drinking water quality. Throughout all documents

researched there were only two mentions of drinking water and public health, both of

which were found in the Environmental Control and Conservation Manual. The first

stated that drinking water suppliers must meet Texas State water standards, but the

second stated that if the drinking water is sourced from underground, it must be treated

per the standards of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. However, if

drinking water comes from ‘an open body of water’ it is automatically assumed to be

polluted and treated as such.

The second definition of the human health theme is separate standards for potable,

non-potable, and ecological use. The Water Conservation Plan only included this aspect

of human health listing three main points; all wholesale water must be treated water,

second, treated effluent is used for reclaimed water, and third, small water plants may

discharge into rivers or irrigate golf courses. The next instance found in the

Environmental Criteria Manual directed that developments that use auxiliary water must

include backflow prevention to avoid any potential contamination of the potable water

system. The final occurrence of this theme is in the Land Development Code which has

rules for providing or refusing reclaimed water services.

Reliable Service

To ensure the long-term viability of Austin’s water systems, it is imperative that

the city understands the region and future need. There were two mentions, one in the

Land Development Code and one in the Water Conservation Plan. The Land Development

Code states that if an entity agrees to construct water facilities then that entity also agrees

to become a part of the water system if the facility is running. Finally, the Water

Conservation Plan describes “Renewing Austin,” a five-year program launched in 2012

that aims to upgrade water lines to ensure the reliability of the distribution system.

Government Participation

Government participation requires that decision-making come from all

appropriate staff and government agencies within the given region. Only two of the

documents researched included any mention of participatory management decision

making, the Land Development Code and the Water Conservation Plan. The Land

Development Code’s cases instruct the City Manager to ensure that voices within various

departments are heard. For example, the City Manager must send applications for water

services or development requests to those city divisions that have a relevant interest

including Parks and Recreation, Urban Transportation Commission, Water and

Wastewater Commission, and/or the Environmental Board. Additionally, the Manager

must file citizen petitions for water services with the city clerk, any department that

participated in the review of the petition as well as each member of the Water and

Wastewater Commission, Planning Commission, Environmental Board, Parks and

Recreation Board, and Urban Transportation Commission.

The Water Conservation Plan includes governmental participation in ways that

differ from the Land Development Code. Instead of ensuring that different departments

view applications, petitions, and requests, the Water Conservation Plan incorporated the

founding of the “Water Wise Newsletter” which is issued not only to customers but

departments as well. Additionally, Austin Water has one full-time employee whose job is

to address water loss within the system. That individual acts as a liaison for all water loss

issues. The last example of participatory management is more traditional; the Austin

Water service area is located within Texas’ Region K Planning group. The Water

Conservation Plan was shared with this planning group to ensure that other members of

Region K were aware of Austin’s conservation goals.

Community Participation

Just as with government participation, only the Land Development Code and the

Water Conservation Plan included any mention of community involvement in the water

process. The Land Development Code included a study to assess current and future

transportation of pollution in and through the city via the Barton Springs Edwards

Aquifer and other streams. This study must be completed with citizen input. The Water

Conservation Plan incorporated a more traditional view of community participation. The

plan included encouraging water conservation through public education, community

outreach, and citizen participation. According to the plan, education and outreach build

awareness and encourages participation. Austin Water also advertises about water

conservation and programs available in addition to sending staff members to speak on

conservation topics at local events.

Available Data Resources

Two policies, the Water Conservation Plan and the Drainage Criteria Manual,

include one occurrence for data management, both of which discuss the need to improve

the quality of data gathered and regretting incomplete data sets and availability. The Land

Development Code requires public hearings and states that all adopted documents are on

file with the City Clerk. The Environmental Criteria Manual lists specific requirements for

records availability. First, all files must be on a construction site and available for at least

three years. Second, permit applications are open to the public unless it is listed as

confidential by the Texas Open Records Act. Finally, all new residential developments

must include an applicant-developed plan to provide education to home buyers or tenants

on methods to reduce non-point source pollution to protect Barton Springs and the

Edwards Aquifer system.

Equitable Distribution

The Land Development Code discusses equitable distribution regarding tap permit

applications. Permit applications must show that the property is located within the city’s

water impact fee service area, or covered by an agreement that authorizes impact fees.

The Drainage Criteria Manual also discusses distribution in terms of charges for the

regional stormwater management program, which are based on the size of the

development, proposed land use, and development intensity. The fees are then allocated

for the watershed in which each development is located.

The Water Conservation Plan provides the most comprehensive look at the

equitable distribution of water resources. First, Austin Water is required to meter all

customers universally. Second, the water rate structure is five-tiered to discourage

residential users from excess water use as well as to encourage commercial and

multifamily customers to conserve water. Additionally, all wholesale clients and large

volume/industrial customers are charged an individual rate established through

negotiated contract. The city then maintains records of distribution and sales in a central

billing system which separates water sales into the following categories and charges

different rates for water and wastewater services.

 Single family residential

 Multi-family

 Commercial

 Wholesale

 Large volume industrial

Furthermore, all this information is used to determine at what point the city can reduce

water consumption that balances continued population growth with the costs of

conservation and the needs of the current community.

Socially Just

Only the Land Development Code included ordinances that discuss this need, all

of which are considered in terms of permits and impact fees. Tap permits are required for

new water services of any kind, including community supported gardens which are given

temporary permits if the garden permit is still valid. For those living outside Austin

Water’s boundaries, the city may limit the number of bonds the district may issue, and

rates are calculated based on current city customer rates. Most new tap permits also

include impact fees that are paid in one lump-sum. However, if the applicant can prove

that this payment would cause undue hardship, the applicant can also apply for a payment

plan. There are a few instances where the impact fee is waived:

 When water hook ups are only for fire protection

 When water hook ups are for a city-supported community garden

 When water hook ups are a part of affordable housing – after being selected from

the wait list

The final point the Land Development Code makes about socially just pricing is that the

administration of city watershed protection ordinances and water management systems

should be fair, consistent, and cost-effective.

Economic Pillar: Theme Findings

Conservation

Conservation is the most represented theme in this subdivision. The Water

Conservation Plan self-evidently includes information about conservation, although the

points are geared more towards the abstract or ‘big-picture.’ The Environmental Criteria

Manual and the Environmental Control and Conservation Manual include more concrete

examples of conservation measures.

The Water Conservation Plan is a long-term plan to reduce total water use to 140

gallons per capita per day by 2020. There are three main goals listed as part of the project.

1) Reduce per capita demand

2) Reduce peak demand

3) Delay the point at which total water diversions trigger additional payments to

the Lower Colorado River Authority.

The plan states that reducing water is necessary, but it is also important to balance the

cost of conservation with increasing need due to population growth. There were two key

strategies for reducing water use – reducing unaccounted or leak loss water and

conservation education. Reducing water loss includes a full-time employee to address

water loss, subsurface leak detection for the entire system every five years, and that all

wholesale contracts created or amended after 2009 must include a conservation program.

The Water Conservation Plan is enforced through routine patrols and follow-up from

water waste reports made to the 311 Austin city hotline.

The Environmental Criteria Manual included three areas of conservation after

citing that conservation is easier and less expensive than the restoration of the resource.

The first is that rainwater and storm water on a commercial property can be used to

irrigate landscapes or as cooling water. Second, all new commercial or multi-family

resident homes must include conservation implements including irrigation systems with

automatic rain shut-off valves, low-flow sprinkler heads, and zones separated by plant

water requirements. Finally, the Environmental Criteria Manual allows for commercial

buildings to receive credit towards reduced impact fees for a green roof that meets the

city’s restrictions.

The Environmental Control and Conservation Manual includes the greatest

number of specific ordinances tied to conservation. These regulations vary from drought

restrictions to reclaimed water rules. The list below combines all of the concepts discussed

throughout the Manual.

 Restaurants may not provide water to customers unless a customer specifically

requests a glass.

 Businesses that provide lodging must provide a towel/linen reuse option.

 A person or organization cannot conduct a charity car wash without doing so at an

authorized vehicle washing facility.

 A person may not use a commercial power/pressure washer unless it is fitted with

a recycling unit, low flow spray nozzle, and working trigger shut-off.

 Fountains may only be operated if they use recirculating water and fountain

watering only occurs during designated outdoor water days.

 All new commercial developments must connect to reclaimed water hook ups

unless that building is for municipal law enforcement or public health and safety.

 Roadway base preparation, dust abatement, or other projects where reclaimed

water is available within one mile of the site must use that reclaimed water unless

doing so would jeopardize public or environmental health and safety.

 Failure to fix a repairable leak or sprinkler issue will result in a fine.

The final conservation tool outlined in the Environmental Control and Conservation

Manual was the drought restrictions on pages 39-42. Comprised of four stages, the City

Manager can order these water use restrictions based on the severity of drought situations

throughout the city. The only variance to the drought regulations is for newly installed

landscapes where greater leniency on water restrictions are given to those landscapes

defined as xeriscapes.

 Stage One:

• Designated outdoor water use day by house number

• No irrigation between 5:00 am and 7:00 pm

• May not use a hose-end sprinkler between 10:00 am and 7:00 pm

• May not operate a patio mister at a commercial facility except between

4:00 pm and midnight

• May not wash or rinse any vehicle unless at a designated vehicle washing

facility.

 Stage Two: the same as stage one with the following additional regulations

• Operation of charity car washes prohibited

• May not irrigate a golf fairway unless between midnight and 5:00 am or

7:00 pm and midnight. Greens or tees may be watered every other day

• No ornamental fountains with aerial emissions of water unless

necessary for aquatic habitats.

 Stage Three: includes provisions from stages one and two and the following

• The filling of spas is prohibited

• No splash pads unless given approval

• Patio mister use is reduced to 4:00 pm and 8:00 pm

 Stage Four:

• No irrigation

• No washing of outdoor surfaces

• No vehicle washes

• No fountains or patio misters

• No filling of tubs, spas, fountains, ponds, or pools unless used for

livestock

• No chemical lawn treatments that use water

Reuse

While there were many examples of conservation, there were only eight for the

reuse of water. The Water Conservation Plan indicates that several of the city’s small

water plants use their reclaimed water for golf course irrigation, cooling towers, and other

non-potable uses. The plan also stipulates that all water for wholesale contracts must be

treated water. The Environmental Criteria Manual includes an interesting point about

rainwater harvesting. It listed that rainwater harvesting can provide captured water for

use, however, capture is only permitted for commercial developments!

Anticipate Future Need

Only the Water Conservation Plan included any mention of future water need.

Specifically, the plan stated that the city entered an agreement with the Lower Colorado

River Authority for an additional 250,000 AF/year to be purchased in the future, for

future use.

Coordinate Surface and Ground Water Management

Governments need to be able to coordinate the management of ground and surface

water systems to ensure the long-term viability of the water in the region. However, only

the Environmental Criteria Manual and Land Development Code included any reference

to the management of surface and ground water. The Water Conservation Plan, while not

a direct reference to surface/groundwater management, did state that 100% of the surface

water used in Austin is acquired through water rights and a contract with the Lower

Colorado River Authority.

The Environmental Criteria Manual states that the policies in place are there to

protect and improve the quality of surface water and maintain or improve the quality and

quantity of recharge to groundwater, specifically the Edwards Aquifer. However, this

Manual also recognized that the combination of Austin’s sensitive environment, plus

increasing growth and waste disposal practices in the region raise concerns about the

capability of ground and surface water resources to continue to assimilate those

contaminants. To manage contamination, the Land Development Code prohibits

development in water quality transition zones without significant restrictions.

Additionally, if at any point during city-wide development a void in the rock substrate is

uncovered all work must be halted and an investigation must ensure that groundwater

would not be contaminated should work continue.

Environmental Pillar: Theme Findings

Relaxed Control of Waterways

There were two instances of this theme, one each in the Land Development Code

and Environmental Criteria Manual. The definition suggests that there should be

language that begins or continues a process of removing, reducing use, or minimizing

human-made impacts on waterways. The Land Development Code represents this theme

by prohibiting any blasting in the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone unless the applicant

demonstrates that a feasible alternative does not exist. The policy requires, among other

conditions for pollution reduction and ecosystem health, that any modification to the

floodplain should preserve natural or traditional characteristics of land and waterways,

encourage sound engineering and ecological practices, and encourage stability and

integrity of floodplains and waterways.

Reduce Pollutant Impact

This theme was the most often coded for all Austin Policy with a total of 61 codes

found in five of the six documents. Each policy recognizes that pollution is a significant

problem for water quality. The Land Development Code clearly explains this thinking by

stating that the people of the city want to preserve clean drinking water, prevent the

degradation of water quality in the aquatic habitats of the region, ensure the cost-effective

administration of city water policy, and promote public health and safety. Additionally,

the city recognizes that the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer is very susceptible to

pollution due to urban development and that the policy must reflect the need to protect

the water supply.

While this is a grand statement, most of the Land Development Code is more

specific in its ordinances. Section 25-8-514 is the main ordinance relating to pollution.

This section states that there must be no increase in the annual pollutant load of

suspended solids, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, chemical oxygen demand,

biochemical oxygen demand, total lead, cadmium, fecal coliform, fecal streptococci,

volatile organic compounds, total organic carbon, pesticides, and herbicides. The

regulations under this section include everything from erosion zone requirements to

operating permits and are found throughout the code.

 Water quality control standards must be implemented in all development projects

throughout the city

 A construction official must inspect the land grading, drainage and detention, and

water quality control facilities to determine if the facilities comply with the

approved site plans. After completion of the construction, the same official must

submit a letter stating that all aspects of the build followed standards.

 Drainage patterns must be designed to prevent erosion, maintain infiltration,

recharge local springs and attenuate the harm of contaminants from storm water.

 Owners or operators of a commercial or multifamily development must obtain an

annual operating permit for water quality control – permit includes a required

maintenance plan for water quality and a yearly fee.

 The discharge of groundwater from a development site structure must be managed

to avoid adverse effects on public health and safety, the environment, or any

adjacent properties.

 The City shall complete a study about the risk of accidental contamination of the

Edwards Aquifer by toxic or hazardous materials and make recommendations on

ways to improve safety.

Next, the Environmental Criteria Manual involves many requirements all throughout

the manual for pollution prevention, five of which are directly related to limiting the

discharge of sediment into waterways during construction throughout the city. Seven

others relate to limiting the discharge of sediments during storm water runoff. Finally,

another four expanding upon those requirements listed in the Land Development Code.

In addition to these groupings of requirements, there are also many specific conditions

mostly revolving around the need to reduce erosion and sedimentation.

 To demonstrate compliance with pollution requirements, developers must submit

additional materials with the Engineering Report including methodology and

water quality control strategies proposed to reach the target and expected pollutant

load reductions for the proposed development, and any special conditions

approved by the City for the installation or maintenance of proposed water quality

controls.

 The length of time between clearing and replanting of a project cannot exceed

eighteen months without an extension by the Director of the Watershed Protection

Department.

 Erosion and sedimentation controls are required for all construction and

developments, conducted with or without a permit.

 Pollution reduction plans are necessary for all industrial developments not

enclosed in a building including basic industry, custom manufacturing, general

warehousing and distribution, light manufacturing, recycling, resource extraction,

and stockyards.

 Disposal of treated wastewater effluent by irrigation is an acceptable alternative to

direct discharge into surrounding lakes or streams.

The Environmental Criteria Manual also states, noticeably more emphatically than

typical policy language, that erosion and sedimentation control is only effective when

permanent. Without it, exposed or disturbed soil may erode, stream banks may become

unstable, and sedimentation will occur decreasing recreational and aesthetic potential,

reducing plant and animal biodiversity and potentially threatening the quality of drinking

water. The Environmental Control Manual continues by stating that development and the

resulting increased impervious cover leads to increased frequency of full bank river and

stream conditions that result in increased erosion, increased stream bank failure, loss of

property, increased clogging of downstream systems, increased maintenance of pump

systems, and decreased water quality.

The final three policies all have one instance of pollution reduction or management

each. The Environmental Control and Conservation Manual states that a person may not

directly, or indirectly, allow discharge or put into the water supply or land that drains into

the water supply any garbage, litter, sewage, effluent, industrial waste, or any other waste

or substance that causes pollution. Finally, the Drainage Criteria Manual discusses the

effect that urban development has on the rate of runoff from a rainfall event. Urbanization

increases the hydraulic efficiency of a drainage area reducing the overall storage capacity

of the watershed. This, in turn, increases flooding, the rates, and volume of runoff,

erosion, and degradation of stream channels.

Restore/Maintain Healthy Ecosystem Function

This is the second most frequently cited theme within the Austin policies, with a

total count at 41 – most of which are found in the Land Development Code and the

Environmental Criteria Manual. The Land Development Code speaks to maintaining

healthy ecosystems in broad strokes with big ideas while the Environmental Criteria

Manual and Drainage Criteria Manual describe practical applications to ensure healthy

ecosystem function.

The Land Development Code included the required creation of the Watershed

Protection and Development Review Department which ensures that all development

complies with codes while still being environmentally responsible and cost effective. In

addition to the development of this department, the Land Development Code also

established the Save Our Springs (SOS) Initiative where additional responsibilities were

enacted for development within the Barton Springs watershed. The SOS Initiative

required water treatment plants that would otherwise discharge over an aquifer to use

that discharge as irrigate effluent. The last concept in the Land Development Code stated

on page 161 that the director of the Water and Wastewater Utility may refuse reclaimed

water service for any of the following reasons:

 Service would be detrimental to potable water systems

 Supply would be inadequate

 Required fees were not paid

 Reclaimed water in the proposed region would not benefit the city

 Proposed use is not appropriate for reclaimed water

 Safeguards are not in place to protect public health or the environment

The code also includes some specific requirements. First, if planned development is

over a karst aquifer, within the water quality transition zone, in a floodplain, or with a

gradient of greater than 15% that development is required to file an Environmental

Resource Inventory to identify critical environmental features and propose protection

measures, as well as provide an environmental justification for spoils disposal location.

Second, development is not allowed in critical water quality zones and any blasting in that

region is strictly prohibited. Finally, at least 50% of the area within 25 feet of a riparian

shoreline must be preserved or restored to natural conditions.

The Drainage Criteria Manual includes five requirements, four of which relate directly

to storm drain water discharge. Rainwater from storm drains must not impact stream

stabilization. To avoid this natural or open channels are recommended as they have

advantages in cost, capacity, recreational and aesthetic purposes. They also increase

concentration times, decrease downstream peak flow. Finally, floodplain models are

developed on a watershed-wide basis and cannot be applied without a case-by-case

modification.

With more specifics, the Environmental Criteria Manual includes a broad range of

rules for the protection of ecosystems. It states that the objective of the policy is to

preserve and protect vegetation and habitats because the conversion of land from its

natural state to urban development accelerates erosion and sedimentation which

negatively impacts city drinking water, aquatic life, and recreational resources. With this

in mind, the Environmental Criteria Manual states that development in the Barton

Springs Zone must involve stricter water quality controls. To ensure aquifer recharge, if a

quarry is located within a recharge zone or overlying the Edwards group or Georgetown

formation rock strata, then the owner may operate the open pit as an aquifer recharge

enhancement project. To protect floodplain ecosystems, the 100-year floodplain

objectives include preventing and reducing degradation of water quality and restoring

damaged floodplain regions to natural processes.

The Environmental Control Manual does include several rulings for wetlands. First,

any interbasin hydrologic diversion can adversely impact wetlands and should be

avoided. Second, vegetation in a wetland needs specific conditions, and any alteration of

those conditions can degrade soil and vegetation. Wetland plants enhance the removal of

pollutants and ensure increased water quality and soil stabilization. Therefore, any

wetland restoration must include wetland plants that are native to the area, within a 200-

mile range, and must be diverse to provide resiliency to the system.

Protect Potential Natural Resources

The policies show only five instances of working towards protecting potential

resources. The Environmental Criteria Manual states that all development adjacent to the

Colorado River must list all drainage within 150 feet. This ensures that current

development will not jeopardize the future water purchase that Austin already has in

place. The Land Development Code requires an Environmental Resource Inventory for

any development over karst aquifers, within an area that drains into a karst aquifer, a

floodplain or a hill with greater than 15% gradient. This also works towards long-term

water quality needs as it is established to protect aquifer recharge zones.

Restore/ Maintain River Flow and Lake Levels

The Land Development Code includes rules stating that the obstruction of

waterways is prohibited and that the person in control of that property is responsible for

a clear waterway – any standing water is considered a nuisance and is a fineable offense.

Any form of modification of the floodplain is only allowed if that modification is necessary

to protect public health and safety, provides significant and demonstrable environmental

benefit and is in a floodplain classified as fair or poor. The final requirement is that

development may not divert storm water from one watershed to another unless the

diversion is authorized. These are necessary to ensure the long-term viability of river and

lakes while not directly meeting the theme’s requirements.

Summary

While all of Austin’s codes and plans included at least one of the themes from the

conceptual framework, three themes were not found in any one document – an

institutional organization to prevent or solve water conflict, finding or using non-

traditional water sources, and restricting groundwater pumping. It is surprising that a

sustainable city in a region prone to drought would not have an organization to manage

water conflict, or indeed, any regulation for future conflict. However, as a whole, the city

does have an abundance of the themes representative of sustainability and appears to

meet the expectations of this research. The next step is to look at Austin’s control city –

Fort Worth.

CHAPTER SIX:

WATER POLICY RESULTS FOR FORT WORTH, TX.

This chapter covers the first traditional, or control, city Fort Worth. While Fort

Worth does have a sustainability task force and a program to save Fort Worth’s water, the

city was not listed on any of the “Most Sustainable U.S. Cities” lists which makes it a good

counter-point to Austin. This chapter looks at Fort Worth’s water-related codes and plans

using the conceptual framework to determine if and how sustainability is incorporated in

a traditional city.

City Information and Policies

Fort Worth started as a small outpost on the lands surrounding the Trinity River.

Water has played a major role in the development of the city. The first artesian well was

drilled in 1876; before this new technology, the citizens of Fort Worth collected drinking

water from Trinity River and the surrounding springs. Well water was sold via carts in the

city square, and it was not until 1882 that water lines and sewer systems were established.

As the city developed, Fort Worth continued to be dependent on artificial lake systems for

water use, creating no less than five large lakes to maintain supply (Selcer, n.d.). Per the

US Census, there are 742,060 people in Fort Worth in 2010 with an estimated 792,727

citizens in 2013, representing a 6.8% increase in population. With a land area of 339.82

square miles, this equates to 2,181.2 people per square mile. ("Fort Worth (city), Texas,"

2013).

The city is located in a humid subtropical climate. Elevation ranges from 500 to

800 feet and is characterized by rolling hills (As shown in Figure 6.1). Precipitation varies

considerably depending on tropical cyclone activity but averages between 20 and 50

inches a year. One significant difference in climate between Austin and Fort Worth is high

temperature – typical Fort Worth summer high temperatures are frequently over 100

degrees Fahrenheit ("Dallas/Fort Worth Climate Overview," 2009).

Figure 6.1. Fort Worth City Limits and Water

* Cartographer: Stefen David

Fort Worth has seven codes and one plan that relate to water within the city. Five

of these policies are equivalent with policies in Austin. The sixth through eighth policies

are exclusive to Fort Worth.

1. Building Code: This code relates to building and renovation throughout the city.

2. Environmental Protection and Compliance Code: This covers storm water

protection, ground and surface water quality, public drinking water quality, industrial

wastewater, and liquid waste.

3. Public Utilities Code: Public Utilities, in addition to other utilities, oversees the

public water services and sewers.

4. Water and Sewer Code: This ordinance regulates drinking water services,

water facilities, wastewater facilities, sewers and water mains, irrigation systems, and

reclaimed water services.

5. Drought Contingency and Emergency Water Management Plan: The

Drought Contingency and Emergency Water Management Plan is a Texas State

requirement for all cities to include plans for conservation of water during drought and

emergency.

6. Lake Worth Code: The Lake Worth Code discusses, in addition to human

swimming safety, anthropogenic lake pollution.

7. Health and Sanitation Code: The Health and Sanitation code covers many

aspects of human health including ensuring access to safe drinking water.

8. Plumbing Code: The plumbing code contains all the ordinances related to the

installation, maintenance, and repair of all plumbing systems connected to city water or

sewage systems.

Fort Worth does not use groundwater as public drinking water because of limited

quantity and low quality which may pose threats to human health in some areas. Indeed,

only six percent of all municipal water supplies in the entire Tarrant County comes from

groundwater. The city takes this issue seriously, prohibiting groundwater use when public

drinking water is available.

Table 6.1 shows the results of the document analysis. The numbers in each column

represent the frequency with which each theme was present in the policy. Each policy

receives one point for each theme found in each policy. Those points are converted into a

percentage (out of the 21 possible points). The total frequency of each theme is totaled at

the bottom of table 6.1.

Social Pillar: Theme Results

Human Need

Fort Worth recognizes the human need for water and has listed, in the Water and

Sewer Code, that the daily demand is 215 gallons of water PPD. This is well above the

suggested per person need. Interestingly, the Emergency Water Management Plan states

that the city can reliably deliver of up to 460 million gallons of water per day. When

considering the population of approximately 792,727 people, that translates into 580.28

gallons PPD; also well above the suggested human need. The city then takes this a step

further, requiring that civil defense shelters include freshwater storage for a ½ gallon per

person per day.

Table 6.1. Fort Worth Matrix Results

Theme

Building Code

Environmental

Protection &

Compliance Code

Public Utilities Code

Water & Sewer

Code

Emergency Water

Management Plan

Lake Worth Code

Health & Sanitation

Code

Plumbing Code

TOTALS

SOCIAL PILLAR

Quality of Life

Meets basic human need

Maintain human safety

Maintain human health

Reliable service

Democratic Water Decisions

Participatory Management

Community Participation

Available Data Resources

Pricing

Equitable Distribution

Socially Just

ECONOMIC PILLAR

Scarcity of Resources

Conservation

Reuse

Anticipate Future Need

Government Approach

Coordinate surface/ground water management

Organizations for water conflict

Non-traditional water sources

ENVIRONMENTAL PILLAR

Reduce Human Impact

Restrict Groundwater Pumping

Relax control of waterways

Reduce Pollutant Impacts

Ecosystem Function

Restore/ Maintain healthy function

Protect potential natural resources

Maintain/ restore river flow & lake levels

Total Points (out of 21)

Total in Percentage

33%

43%

33%

19%

14%

19%

71%

Total Frequency

Regarding everyday water usage, the Building Code maintains that landlords

cannot interrupt service for water or sewers unless for legitimate repair, construction, or

emergency. The Health and Sanitation Code requires that all businesses with more than

five employees have safe drinking water available.

Human Safety

Only two of the policies mention any form of public safety, the Health and

Sanitation Code and the Building Code. While the metric’s description states that

maintaining human health involves planned steps in case of purification failure or water

shortage, as with Austin, there is a heavy emphasis placed on protection from water. The

only outlier that discusses public health in terms outside of flood protection is in the

Health and Sanitation Code. In this instance, the Department of Public Health is given

the authority to take samples of water from any well, system, or bottle to ensure that they

meet the requirements of the United States Public Health Service Drinking Water

Standard.

The Building Code includes specific instructions to protect from flood hazards. The

Code states that because of the city’s obstruction of the floodplain, the city must protect

human safety and general welfare by minimizing public and private losses due to flooding.

For those buildings in flood hazard areas, additional construction requirements are put

in place, including;

 adequate anchors to prevent floating

 construction that works to reduce flood damage and uses flood resistant materials

 all electric, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and HVAC units must be situated in a

way that prevents water from damaging parts,

 and all on-site waste disposal systems must be in an area that avoids impairment

during a flood.

The Building Code specifically states that there will be no variances to these rules for

those buildings within a designated floodway unless there is a determination that non-

variance would cause exceptional hardship to applicant, a determination that the variance

will not increase flood height, decrease public safety, cause additional public expense,

increased nuisances, the victimization of the public, or any conflict with existing law.

There are additional requirements for those construction sites within the Trinity River

Corridor and should a person develop in this zone without first obtaining a corridor

development certificate from the floodplain administration that person is committing a

violation. Outside of construction the Building Code also states that any building may not

contain any accumulation of waste products or stagnant water. It also maintains that all

plumbing fixtures must be installed and maintained in a safe and sanitary way where the

flow of sewage is not stopped.

Human Health

There are two separate descriptions for this theme. The first involves water quality

standards above the national regulations. The second, standards that separate uses for

potable, non-potable, and ecological use. Of all the policies in Fort Worth, three include

some mention of human health. However, all of them relate to water quality standards

with no discussion of separate water uses.

The Emergency Water Management Plan states that the entire purpose of the plan

is, in addition to conservation of water and the maintenance of water supply for use during

an emergency, the protection and preservation of public health and welfare by minimizing

adverse impacts of water supply shortage. This concept is reiterated in the Environmental

Protection and Compliance Code. The code also states that the purpose of the policy is to

maintain the quality of the water in the city for public health and enjoyment. It goes on to

list other uses including the protection of terrestrial and aquatic life and the operation of

industry and economic development of the city. The Environmental Protection and

Compliance Code also requires that all Publicly Owned Treatment Works meet federal

and state law and protect the health and safety of all employees and the public.

The final policy, the Water and Sewers Code, includes two instances of this theme.

The first instructs that all construction of dams, embankments, fills, or obstructions over

or across a natural watercourse in the city must have a permit showing that water

impounded or diverted will not constitute a menace to the health of the community, to

natural drainage, or to travel on surrounding streets. The second states that any water

used to preserve or protect the health of citizens, police, fire, or emergency services, are

exempt from any and all restrictions found within the Water and Sewer code.

Reliable Service

Only the Water and Sewer code included any policy on reliable service. It states

that the city water supply must be ‘adequate.’ Only when the water supply is ‘adequate’ is

the city required to provide water to applicants of customers. In the case of a shortage or

emergency, users with priority access to the limited water supply are determined by the

Director but are also subject to state requirements. However, the term ‘adequate’ is not

defined and appears to be left to interpretation.

Government Participation

Government participation discusses decision making using all appropriate

members of the government, where decisions are holistic and reflect input from all

departments that have a role. Fort Worth’s policies include four instances of collaborative

government.

The Environmental Protection and Compliance Code includes government

participation in various applications. First, if a business or resident is planning on

installing a monitoring well, a formal request must be coordinated with all holders of

utility licenses, including the Texas Department of Transportation, Tarrant County Water

Control and Improvement District, Tarrant County Department of Public Works, Trinity

River Authority, and the adjacent property owner. Not only must the request be

coordinated with the above groups, but the environmental manager of the city must also

forward copies to the city attorney, the risk management division of finance, city fire chief,

city traffic engineer, department of water – engineering division, director of development,

and the department of parks and recreation. This second group of individuals can impose

additional requirements to any monitoring well conditions set by the first group.

The next example of government participation is in applications for a Municipal

Setting Designation. This designation prohibits the potable use of shallow, perched

groundwater. The request is sent to the Environment Management Department which

then distributes to the city water department, transportation and public works, and the

planning and development staff. These groups review the application to determine if there

are any adverse impacts to the city or city-wide interests. It is only when these groups

approve that a Municipal Setting Designation is granted.

The final government participation code from the Environmental Protection and

Compliance Code is more than just intergovernmental communication. Should

wastewater flow downstream from another municipality, that municipality must enter an

interlocal agreement with the city of Fort Worth which includes the description of the

quality and volume of wastewater and an inventory of all users contributing to the

discharge. While no other governing organization in Fort Worth is included, other

municipalities are responsible for holistic water management.

The Building Code lists one specific instance of government participation. Any

construction that involves the areas surrounding Lake Worth must be additionally

regulated by the Fort Worth Water Department. This is because the Water Department

oversees the safety of the water and the safe usage of the water systems; Lake Worth is a

large part of the water system and must be carefully managed.

Community Participation

In all of Fort Worth’s policy, there are only two instances where community

participation is mentioned, both of which are found in the Emergency Water Management

Plan. The first discusses the creation of the Plan. Before the adoption of the Plan, the

public had three chances to provide feedback. First, the draft was posted online for

comment. Second, these observations were discussed at a Public Meeting. Finally, the

plan was posted four months before adoption for final remarks.

The second relates to the dissemination of information throughout the community.

Fort Worth posts copies of the Emergency Water Management Plan on its website and

has fact sheets available for the public. Additionally, there are staff available to make

presentations about the plan to groups around the city. These actions check that the

community understands the implications of drought and emergency water management.

Available Data Resources

In all, there are five instances of this concept within the policies. First, the

Environmental Protection and Compliance Code states that all information obtained from

reports, surveys, permit applications, and director inspections must be made available to

the public without restriction. This is only able to be waived should the release of that

information divulge trade secrets. The other two instances of this theme in the

Environmental Protection and Compliance Code require that the city annually publishes

a list of users which, during the previous twelve months, were in significant

noncompliance with pretreatment standards and requirements established for facilities

discharging wastewater to the Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility and the

Trinity River Authority Wastewater Treatment Facility. To be widely available, this list of

users must be published in a general circulation newsletter. The Plumbing Code

reinforces the need for open information by requiring all construction documents be

available on the worksite while the authorized work is in progress. Finally, the Water and

Sewer Code states that all customers can request account information and history for the

last three years without charge; for each year after three years involves a $15 charge per

year requested.

Equitable Distribution

Only the Plumbing Code and the Water and Sewer Code included any mention of

pricing. The Plumbing Code includes specific required uses for harvested rainwater due

to the inherent limitations of quality, quantity, and usability of rainwater. The Water and

Sewers Code creates a separate fund for the proceeds from wholesale sewer customers.

This fund is not commingled with retail proceeds and can only be used for contracts

between Fort Worth and wholesale customers. Finally, the monthly volume charge for

water services is on a separate fee schedule for retail services within and without the city

limits.

Socially Just

The Environmental Protection and Compliance Code includes the concept of

‘socially just pricing’ by assessing the sewage and drainage utility fees on four residential

tiers based on income. Additionally, the Code requires that water services continue during

the process of appeals. If water was terminated prior an appeal hearing, water must be

restored after the user pays the initiation fee. However, water cannot be reinstated if the

violation under appeal includes the city electrical code, building code, fire code, or any

other code that relates to water as deemed by the director of the water department. When

considering water shutoff regarding landlords and rental properties, according to the

Building Code, landlords are not permitted to interrupt water services unless for repair,

construction, or emergency.

The Utilities Code states that the utility supervisor must submit a detailed analysis

of new or proposed rates and rate changes to the city manager and city council. The city

council then regulates those rates. The Water and Sewers Code gives leniency by allowing

approved hardship cases to make water deposits in installments.

Economic Pillar: Theme Findings

Conservation

Conservation in Fort Worth seems to revolve around three main strategies; the

drought response stages, irrigation maintenance, and water capture and reuse. The most

instrumental section of the Emergency Water Management Plan is the description of the

drought response stages used to save water during times of drought or emergency.

Indeed, the purpose of the plan is to conserve water supply, maintain supply for domestic

use, sanitation, and fire protection, protect public health, welfare, and safety, as well as to

minimize adverse impacts of water supply shortages and emergency water supply

conditions. To do this, the city manager or his or her official designee order the institution

of drought response stages based on the severity of the triggering conditions. According

to the Water and Sewer Code, to institute a drought response stage, the city manager must

make a public announcement to the news media, publish the information about the water

stage both on the city website and a general circulation newspaper. The stages stay in

effect until the triggering situation has been eliminated. If the drought response stage was

initiated due to excessive demands, actions remain in force through September 30 of that

year. The Water and Sewers Code and the Emergency Water Management Plan both state

that city managers are given the power to adjust this timetable as needed and can continue

the stage based on time of year, weather conditions, or the anticipated potential for

changed conditions – whichever the reason is, it must be clearly documented. The

different stages of water restrictions are listed below in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2.- Fort Worth Drought Requirements

STAGE 1

WATER WATCH

STAGE 2

WATER WARNING

STAGE 3

EMERGENCY WATER USE

Triggering

Conditions



Water demand reaches or exceeds

90% reliable capacity for 3

consecutive days – either citywide

or in a given area



Water treatment or distribution

system becomes contaminated



Demand approaches capacity

because delivery capacity is

inadequate



Unable to deliver water due to

failure or damage of major system

components



Water demand reaches or

exceeds 95% reliable capacity

for 3 consecutive days – either

citywide or in a given area.



Contamination of water supply

or source



Demand equals capacity

because delivery capacity is

inadequate



Water supply system in unable

to deliver water due to failure or

damage of major system

components



Tarrant Regional Water District

(TRWD) Initiated response:

western and eastern division

reservoirs drop below 60%

capacity – water demand is

reached because capacity is met

– water demand expected to

reach supply – supply source is

contaminated.

 Water demand reaches or

exceeds 95% reliable capacity

for 3 consecutive days – either

citywide or in each area.

 Contamination of water supply

or source

 Demand equals capacity

because delivery capacity is

inadequate

 Water supply system in unable

to deliver water due to failure

or damage of major system

components

 TRWD response: western and

eastern division reservoirs

drop below 45% capacity –

demand exceeds delivery

because delivery capacity is

inadequate – water demand

expected to exceed supply –

major failure or damage to

water system

Goal

5% reduction (city manager or

official can set a higher goal)

10% reduction (city manager or

official can set a higher goal)

20% reduction (city manager or

official can set a higher goal)

Requirements

 No hosing of paved areas except

to alleviate immediate health or

safety concerns

 No hosing of buildings other than

for fire protection or surface

preparation for painting

 No runoff or waste of water due

to failure to fix leaks or the

operation of a leaky system.

 No irrigation 10 am - 6 pm

 Irrigation only 2 days a week.

 All users to limit swimming pool

draining and filling

 All users encouraged to use

drought tolerant plantings

 Washing motor vehicles is

restricted to a soap bucket and

handheld hose system for

residents. Washing can be done

at any time at a commercial wash

station. Any vehicle whose

cleanliness is necessary for the

health of citizenry is exempt from

this requirement (garbage trucks,

food transport)

 All as in previous stages as well

as:

 Irrigation limited to 1 time

a week.

 Prohibit use of water for

dust control unless as

required for public safety

 Prohibit use of ornamental

fountains or ponds with

potable water unless needs

to support aquatic life.

 Prohibit filling swimming

pools with automatic

valves

 All as in previous stages as well

as:

 Prohibit landscape watering of

all parks, golf courses, and

sports fields

 New landscaping is prohibited

 Vehicles can only be washed at

a commercial car wash and can

only be done for health,

sanitation, or safety reasons.

All other vehicle washing is

prohibited.

 All ornamental fountains or

ponds are prohibited unless

necessary to support aquatic

life

 Draining, filling, or refilling of

swimming pools, wading pools

or Jacuzzis is prohibited.

Existing private and public

pools can refill to maintain

pool levels, but they cannot be

filled using automatic fill

valves.

Table 6.2 (Continued)

STAGE 1

WATER WATCH

STAGE 2

WATER WARNING

STAGE 3

EMERGENCY WATER USE

Exceptions

 Watering foundations

 New plantings

 Turf establishment

 Irrigation systems that cannot

complete a cycle within the

given timeframe (requires a

written variance by the water

director)

 Golf courses may water

greens/tees during approved

hours without exception

 Skinned areas of sports fields

may be watered as needed for

dust control

 Professional sports fields may

be watered to maintain league

standards

 Watering foundations

 New plantings

 Irrigation systems that

cannot complete a cycle

within the given timeframe

(requires a written variance

by the water director)

 Golf courses may water

greens/tees during

approved hours without

exception

 Professional sports fields

may be watered to maintain

league standards

 Foundations may be watered for 2

hours/day by hose or dripline

 Trees may be watered 2 hours/day

by hose or dripline

 Golf course greens can only be

watered by hand-held hoses as

needed to keep them alive

(between hours of 10 am – 6 pm)

 Professional sports fields may be

watered as needed to maintain

league standards.

City and Local

Governments

 Review conditions and

problems that caused stage 1

and take corrective action

 Increase public education on

conservation

 Increase enforcement efforts

 Intensify leak detection and

repair efforts

 Audit government irrigation

systems

 Reduce non-essential water use

 Review conditions and

problems that caused stage

2 and take corrective action

 Increase frequency of media

releases on water supply

conditions.

 Further accelerate public

education efforts

 Prohibit wet street sweeping

 Eliminate non-essential

water use

 Review conditions that caused

Stage 3 – take action on review

 Implement viable alternative water

supplies

 Increase frequency of media

releases

 Reduce government water use to

maximum extent

 Prohibit permitting of swimming

pools, Jacuzzis, spas, ornamental

ponds, and fountain construction

 Institute a mandated reduction in

deliveries to all wholesale

customers

 If TRWD has imposed a reduction

in water available – impose the

same percent reduction on

wholesale customers

 The water director will notify

wholesale clients of all actions

being taking.

Commercial &

Industrial

 All as above requirements and:

 Commercial plant nurseries are

exempt from watering

restrictions.

 Hotels, restaurants, and bars

serve drinking water on an ‘on

demand’ basis

 Hotels encouraged to

implement laundry

conservation measures.

 All as above requirements

and:

 Use of fire hydrants for any

reason outside of public

health and safety requires a

special permit issued by

Water Director

 All as above requirements &:

 Hotels, restaurants, and bars are

required to serve water on an “on

demand” basis

 Commercial plant nurseries can

only water with a hand-held hose,

watering can, or drip irrigation

 Commercial and industrial water

users must reduce water by a

number given by the Water

Director

 The use of water hydrants for any

purpose other than firefighting or

maintaining public health requires

a special permit

According to the Emergency Water Management Plan, wholesale customers are

required to apply the same rationing, conservation measures, and restrictions for their

customers as long as any part of the total water supply is furnished by Fort Worth.

However, the Emergency Water Management Plan drought response plan does not apply

to locations using treated wastewater effluent, private wells, or to those individuals who

possess water rights to the Trinity River.

The final aspect of the drought response stages is the associated fines. The Water

and Sewers Code describes the fees for not following the stage requirements. The citizen

who breaks the rules may be fined up to $2,000. Violating stage two includes a fine of no

less than $250 and the fee for violating stage 3 is no less than $500. Should a person or

business infringe twice, the Water Director is permitted to install a flow restrictor to that

address, forcing the reduction of water use. If that individual or company violates the

stage requirements three times, the Water Director can discontinue water services

entirely.

The Water and Sewers Code also includes many requirements for irrigation

systems. The Code specifically states that Fort Worth strictly prohibits the wasting of

water. This could be because of permitting or causing water to be discharged to the street,

public right of way, ditch, or drain unless as a result of uncontrollable events or weather

conditions; or as a result of failing to repair a leak in any plumbing or irrigation within

five working days of discovery.

Additionally, the Water and Sewers Code maintains that all irrigation systems

should be designed, installed, repaired, serviced, and operated in a way that prevents

water waste, promotes efficient water use, and applies as little water as possible to

maintain a healthy landscape or reduce dust. Should the owner of the irrigation system

knowingly or recklessly irrigate in a way that causes substantial water to fall on

impervious surfaces, irrigates during a precipitation event, or irrigates with a broken or

missing sprinkler head that owner has committed an offense to the code. In non-drought

conditions, irrigation is still only permitted between the hours of midnight and 10:00 am

and 6:00 pm to midnight – violators are fined for each instance of “off-hours watering.”

The final irrigation requirement, listed on page 66, states that reclaimed water can be

used for irrigation if the following conditions are met:

1. There is a written agreement between city and owner/operator of the irrigation

system

2. User complies with Texas Administrative Code Title 30 Chapter 210

3. There is no direct contact with edible crops unless crop will be pasteurized

before consumption

4. Irrigation system does not spray into neighboring yards

5. System is installed using all purple components

6. Domestic potable water line is connected to a backflow prevention device

7. A sign stating “Reclaimed Water- don’t drink” in English and Spanish is

prominently posted in the irrigated area.

8. Backflow prevention on reclaimed water supply line complies with all

applicable laws

9. Owner/Operator cannot use or connect any alternative water sources (i.e. gray

water or rainwater) without prior written approval of the Water Director.

The last conservation topic described in Fort Worth’s policies is the use of water

recovery, defined as water acquired from a source other than the municipal water supply,

saved from loss, and made available for use. There are two methods described, rainwater

harvesting and reclaimed water services. Rainwater harvesting requires a permit from the

city before installation, and it must include an approved mosquito protection system, and

the tank must be fitted with a system to prevent algae growth. The reclaimed water

system, as described in the irrigation requirements, can only be used to supply fixtures or

appliances that humans do not use for drinking, consuming, bathing, or the washing of

food or hands.

Reuse

The clearest examples of this theme come from the Plumbing Code. This code

describes two ways to reuse water – gray water collection and industrial reclaimed water

systems. In addition to these two uses, the Environmental Protection and Compliance

Code also promotes the reuse of industrial wastewater and sludge from POTWs.

Grey water is defined in the Plumbing Code as waste water from showers, baths,

sinks that are not used for hazardous materials or food prep and disposal, and clothes

washing machines. Grey water can be used in fixtures or appliances in which humans do

not drink, consume, bathe, or wash food, dishes, or hands. The city qualifies allowable

uses as toilet and urinal flushing as well as turf and landscape irrigation. Grey Water

cannot be used to fill structures designed for contact recreation, such as swimming pools

and hot tubs.

The second reuse option is industrial reclaimed water systems. This is the use of

reclaimed water that comes from an on-site industrial source. The water reclaimed in this

fashion can only be used within the boundaries of the industrial facility. Approved sources

of industrial reclaimed water are air conditioner condensate, compressor condensate,

steam condensate, condensate that forms externally on steam lines and is not process

wastewater, non-contact coolant water, once through coolant water, water treatment

filter backwash, water from external building washings (without chemical or detergents),

and cooling tower blowdown with total dissolved solids of less than 2,000 mg/l. To use

this water legally, the industrial compound must have a water quality report, written by a

Texas state licensed engineer, on file. The report requirements found on page 83 include:

1. Description of purification and filtering system used

2. The chemicals, bacteria, or viruses that the treatment is designed to control. It

must treat for Fecal coliform, Legionella pneumophilia, and Salmonella typhi

at a minimum.

3. The maximum quantity levels of the three above treatments

4. The chemicals used in equipment cleaning and the methods to prevent those

chemicals from reaching the end user at a high concentration

5. The schedule for all on site testing.

Environmental Pillar: Theme Findings

Restrict Groundwater Pumping

There is only one reference to restricting groundwater pumping within the policies

of Fort Worth. The Environmental Protection and Compliance Code states that, in a

municipal setting, the use of groundwater as potable water is prohibited and that a person

who intentionally, knowingly, or with criminal negligence uses groundwater is

committing an offense against this code.

Reduce Pollutant Impacts

First, the Environmental Protection and Compliance Code specifically defines

what is considered “polluted water.” It is that water which meets some of the

requirements listed on page 27:

1. Harmful quantities of free or emulsified grease or oil

2. Phenols or other substances producing taste or odor in receiving water

3. Harmful amounts of toxic or poisonous substances in a suspension, colloidal

state, or solution

4. Noxious gasses, liquids, or solids

5. More than 10 mg/l of total suspended solids (TSS) or biochemical oxygen

demand, or both

6. Color exceeding 50 units as measured by the Platinum/Cobalt Method

7. More than 500 mg/l of dissolved solids or more than 250 mg/l of chlorides or

sulfates

8. A pH less than six or greater than nine

9. Any water or wastewater not approved for discharge by the water commission

or the EPA.

The Environmental Protection and Compliance Code goes on to state that a person

commits an offence if he or she discharges or introduces pollutants, polluted waters, or a

harmful quantity of substances into the Lake Worth Watershed, the Village Creek

Wastewater Treatment Facility, the Trinity River Authority Central Regional Wastewater

Treatment Facility, or the Trinity River Authority Denton Creek Wastewater Treatment

Facility. Also, no person shall discharge wastewater containing total concentrations of

specific pollutants in concentrations exceeding the maximum allowable discharge. These

pollutants and their maximum allowable discharge (all in mg/l) as listed on pages 120-

121 include:

• Arsenic – 0.25

• Cadmium – 0.15

• Chromium – 5.00

• Copper – 4.00

• Lead – 2.90

• Mercury – 0.01

• Nickel – 2.00

• Silver – 1.00

• Zinc – 5.00

• Cyanide– 1.0

The Environmental Protection and Compliance Code continues to describe

pollutant requirements. Users must immediately notify the Water Director of any

accidental pollutant discharge. This immediate notification must include the location of

discharge, type of waste, concentration, and volume, and the corrective action being taken

by the user. Within five days of the discharge, the user must submit a written report

specifying three main points. First, the description and cause of the discharge including

location, type, concentration of pollutant, and volume of water. Second, the duration of

non-compliance (measured with exact date and time), if the noncompliance is continuing

and the response which caused or is causing the discharge to cease. Finally, the report

must include all steps taken to reduce, eliminate, or prevent the continuation or

reoccurrence of the issue. This report does not relieve the user of any expenses, losses,

damages, or liability as a result of the discharge to the system, natural resources, persons,

or property. Nor does this report relieve users from fines and penalties associated with

the pollution discharge. The final point in this is that a notice must be placed in a

conspicuous area advising employees of whom to contact should there be a spill.

The Lake Worth Code only included four mentions of any sustainability theme, all

of them relating to reducing pollution. First, it is unlawful to operate a boat on Lake Worth

without an annual toilet facility inspection. It is also unlawful to bathe or swim in the Lake

Worth reservoir in areas marked for no bathing or swimming without a special written

permit. The final requirement for citizens is that it is unlawful to dispose any trash, body

waste, or excrement into Lake Worth for any reason. The Lake Worth Code also requires

that marinas and marine fuel facilities be designed, maintained, and operated to avoid

spillage or leaks of fuel and petroleum products into the Lake; the marina or fuel facility

must report any spill as described in the Environmental Protection and Compliance Code.

The Environmental Protection and Compliance Code and the Building Code

include requirements for the development of an area. The Environmental Protection and

Compliance Code demands that the placement of any fill materials on a job site may not

result in the runoff to adjacent property and that the erosion control measures must be in

place to prevent migration of silt and sediment. The Building Code discusses the specifics

of construction drainage and plumbing. When drainage is installed discharge must

comply with one of the following two options:

1. When there is no expectation of hydraulic fluid or oil contamination: drainage

may discharge into the sanitary sewer system with approval from the Water

Department

2. If installed where there is a possibility of contamination: a trap of interceptor

must be required before discharge into the sanitary sewer system. Must have

approval from Water Department

In either situation, any drainage to a storm drain is expressly prohibited. Finally, all

plumbing fixtures must be installed and maintained in a safe and sanitary condition. The

flow of sewage from openings or leaks in plumbing lines must be stopped and repaired.

The last policy to include the concepts of reducing pollution is the Health and

Sanitation Code. It states that dry toilets, septic tanks, cesspools, insanitary cow lots,

horse lots, hog pens, collections of garbage or other offensive and dirty things or

substances are not permitted within two hundred feet of any well. If pollution from the

things mentioned above reaches a well from father than two hundred feet, the source of

that pollution must be eliminated.

Restore/Maintain Healthy Ecosystem Function

This theme states that there should be plans or actions taken to maintain or restore

the human-impacted ecosystem in the local area. The only time that this kind of action is

mentioned in the Fort Worth policies is in the Environmental Protection and Compliance

Code in the declaration of policy and purpose. It states that the policy of the city and the

purpose of the policy is to maintain the quality of water in the city that does not reduce

the propagation and protection of terrestrial and aquatic life. It goes on to state that Fort

Worth is working to balance the needs of the people, with public health and enjoyment,

and the needs of industry, through economic development.

Restore/Maintain River Flow and Lake Levels

The Environmental Protection and Compliance Code and the Building Code

contain the only mentions of maintaining river flow and lake levels but not in the way that

the themes suggested. The theme describes this as understanding that water bodies need

a minimum amount of water to meet basic needs of the ecosystem and as such, should

work to maintain those levels at a minimum. The Environmental Protection and

Compliance Code, instead, states that it is the responsibility of the property owner not to

change any existing drainage pattern in a way that results in any flooding or increase of

runoff to adjacent properties. Should something happen to nearby areas, the owner is

responsibility for all liability of the runoff. The Building Code contains the other two

instances of this theme. The first states that the floodway is an extremely hazardous area

because of the velocity of flood waters, potential projectiles, and erosion potential and

that, because of this, the following provisions are necessary:

1. Encroachment is prohibited, which includes fill, new construction or

development, unless an approved technical evaluation is provided showing that

proposed encroachments will not result in an increase in flood levels.

2. If the provisions are satisfied, any construction must comply with all flood

hazard reduction provisions which state that a community may permit

encroachment within the regulatory floodway if the community first applies for

conditional floodway revisions through FEMA.

While this is not identical to the theme definition, the resulting action ensures that the

river or floodplain area is not unnecessarily modified, which maintains the current flow.

Summary

Fort Worth was chosen due to its similarity to Austin to act as a control city when

analyzing water policy for sustainability. However, upon completing this analysis, it is

evident that even though the city was used as a control, it also has elements of

sustainability built into its policies. In some instances, Fort Worth included numerous

references about the same theme – conservation, for example, was mentioned 19 times

overall. It is evident on closer inspection that the policies of Austin and Fort Worth are

written differently, thus impacting the final tallies. For the most part, Austin’s policies

included large sections of text relating to the sustainability theme in question whereas

Fort Worth’s policy style included small sections throughout the text, increasing the

number of times each theme is discussed. The difference in writing styles between the two

cities does account for some of the similarities in results between the two cities. Now that

Texas and the two cities are completed, the next step is to perform the same research for

California, San Francisco, and San Jose.

CHAPTER SEVEN:

SYNOPSIS OF APPLICABLE WATER POLICY IN THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

State policy will influence city policy because cities must meet or exceed state

requirements for water use. Unlike the in-depth analysis of the city policy, this section

presents a summation of specific instances of the state’s influence on city water policy

(See Figure 7.1 for each city’s location within the state). California state, unlike all other

cities and states researched, does not allow for full policy downloads and, as such, was

researched directly on the state website, as described in Chapter Three.

Figure 7.1. Locations of California Cities

* Cartographer: Stefen David

As with Texas, California recognizes riparian and prior appropriation rights for

water use. However, California categorizes the prior appropriation rights to ‘pre-1914

appropriative rights’ and ‘post-1914 appropriative rights.’ Those post-1914 appropriative

rights are acquired via an application to the State Water Resources Control Board

(SWRCB) when the applicant has the following specifics (Aladjem, 2009):

1. An ‘appropriate’ purpose for the use of water

2. A location where the applicant will divert the water

3. The place where the water will be used

4. The maximum rate of diversion and maximum annual quantity of water

diverted

5. The period of each year during which the water will be utilized.

6. Should the SWRCB approve an applicant’s request that landowner now can

withdraw water up to the quantity requested.

California Water Policy

1. Fish and Game Code: This policy includes the creation of the Fish and Game

Commission and establishes the regulatory powers of that organization. It also

covers wildlife and wetland conservation, management, and protection as well as

regulations on marine life and resources.

2. Public Resources Code: This policy creates the Parks and Recreation

Commission and establishes requirements for mining, aquaculture, forestry, and

oil and gas exploration. It also covers state parks, conservation lands, and sacred

sites.

3. Utilities Code: In addition to initiating the Public Utilities Commission, the

policy describes rules and regulations for all public utilities. These include gas, oil,

electric, water, railroad, communications, sewage disposal, and airport facilities.

4. Water Code: This policy creates the Department of Water Resources, California

Water Commission, and the State Water Resources Control Board. The code also

includes rules for water resources management, water shortage emergencies,

water districts and leases, water transfer and determination of water rights,

distribution of water and the management of dams and reservoirs.

5. Water Plan: This state water plan focuses on innovation and infrastructure in

various water applications including integrated water management, water use and

supply, water portfolio diversity, and suggested best management practices for

water managers.

Overall Results

Table 7.1 shows the results from the analysis of California water policies. As with

the analysis of Texas state policy, the research in the state of California only counted those

instances in each of the documents that require or suggest that local governments act or

to include some aspect of a sustainability theme within the city codes and plans. The

numbers in each column represent the frequency with which each theme was present in

each of the five codes and plans. The total frequency of each theme is listed at the bottom

of the table.

Table 7.1. California Matrix Results

Theme

Fish &

Game Code

Public

Resources

Code

Utilities

Code

Water Code

Water Plan

SOCIAL

Quality of Life

Meets Basic Human Need

Maintain Human Safety

Maintain Human Health

Reliable Service

Democratic Water Decisions

Government Participation

Community Participation

Available Data Resources

Pricing

Equitable Distribution

Socially Just

ECONOMIC

Scarcity of Resources

Conservation

Reuse

Anticipate Future Need

Government Approach

Coordinate Surface/Ground Water Management

Organizations for Water Conflict

Non-Traditional Water Sources

ENVIRONMENTAL

Reduce Human Impact

Restrict Groundwater Pumping

Relax Control of Waterways

Reduce Pollutant Impacts

Ecosystem Function

Restore/ Maintain Healthy Ecosystem Function

Protect Potential Natural Resources

Restore/ Maintain River Flow & Lake Levels

Total Frequency

Social Pillar: Theme Findings

Meets Basic Human Need

While not providing any specifics, the Water Plan does note that local city and

county governments are responsible for providing safe and reliable water services. The

Water Code does not include any direct requirements for cities, but it does state that

nothing within the code shall deprive any city, county, municipal water district, or

irrigation district the benefit of any law passed regarding the appropriation or acquisition

of water. Finally, the Public Resources Code is more detailed, requiring that water

companies must ‘properly and adequately’ serve water to inhabitants of the company’s

service area. The code goes on to define ‘properly and adequately’ as furnishing water that

meets or exceeds the standards established by the State Department of Health.

Maintain Human Safety

The Water Code is the only state policy that includes regulations that require

specific city action. First, the code states that cities, counties, state agencies, and public

districts must cooperate during severe weather events and flooding situations to protect

the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the State. Additionally, cities must prepare

an emergency response plan that describes how water services will be restored after an

emergency event. During the interruption of supply due to an earthquake or another

disaster the wholesale water supplier must distribute water to customers without

discrimination due to customer’s geographic location. The final point made by the Water

Code is that the state flood control plan must include an increased engagement of local

agencies to ensure a better connection between state flood management decisions and

city land use decisions.

Reliable Service

Again, only the Water Code included city requirements for maintaining reliable

service for the communities. First, the legislature declared that water is a valuable

resource for California and should be managed to ensure that there are sufficient supplies

for agricultural, domestic, industrial, and environmental needs. To best handle the

resource, the legislature must work with local agencies so that the water is most effectively

used. The policy goes on to say that the conservation and efficient use of water are a

statewide concern but planning and implementation can be best accomplished and the

local, city level. Lastly, the state requires that every urban water supplier includes within

its urban water management plan, an assessment of the reliability of the water service for

customers during normal, dry, and very dry water years. The plan must also include a

supply and demand assessment for clients served over the next two decades, given in five-

year increments, to ensure long-term reliability.

Government Participation

The Water Code and the Water Plan incorporate the cooperation of state and local

governments. The Water Code requires that each city has a local groundwater

management plan that complies with the regulations given in the code – thus

guaranteeing that city plans meet the overall needs of the state’s groundwater system.

Additionally, with regard to groundwater management, it is the legislature’s intent to

promote the coordination of local agencies within the same groundwater basin to adopt a

single, unified groundwater management plan.

The next instance of coordinated government found in the Water Code involves the

San Joaquin Valley. The region requires cooperation between state, local, and federal

water organizations and all officials are urged to participate in a way that continues that

collaboration. To do this fairly, the state designates that local agencies have the authority

to make decisions relating to water use and distribution if those decisions fall within the

requirements given by state and court judgments. The state must coordinate all activities

in this region with the local water agencies while the federal government will continue its

statutory and contractual obligations to provide drainage services within the area.

The Shellfish Protection Act of 1993, described in the Water Code, also includes

the demand for government participation. Because the state or cities do not specifically

create pollutants, but rather by all people, the effort to reduce pollution and, therefore,

benefit the commercial shellfish growing area must be managed at both the state and local

level. To do this, the state board will meet with local technical advisory committees, local

agricultural communities, local resource conservation districts, soil services, and water

conservation services to find the best steps forward to prevent the loss of shellfish growing

areas.

Within this subject of pollution, the Water Code also states that each county, city,

or special district that is a permitee under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) may jointly develop a watershed improvement plan to address

significant sources of pollution within the water system. Each county, city or special

district must then notify the regional water board of its intention to create such a plan,

and that plan must be consistent with the board’s regional water quality control plan.

Additionally, the legislature finds that the lack of intergovernmental cooperation prevents

any form of systematic, rational, and cost-effective programs of water supply,

conservation, and recycling. With this in mind, the legislature states that it is the intent

of state government to enable local governments to establish multicounty agency plans to

manage water resources better.

A large section of the Water Plan revolves around the concept of integrated water

resources management. This method of management requires cooperation across all

levels of government to better align data, planning, policy, and regulation throughout

each region. The plan recognizes that California’s water management system is complex

and fragmented and the only way to successfully integrate water management plans is

through constant communication and cooperation among decision makers at each level

of government. The need for improved government cooperation is recognized by the

legislation as well as several public agencies including the California Water Commission,

Resource Conservation Districts, California Biodiversity Council, and the Strategic

Growth Council. These agencies state that many issues impede better implementation of

integrated water resources management and include inadequate data sharing,

duplication of efforts, focus on single-purpose projects, inadequate partnerships across

all levels of government, and project delays and compliance costs

Community Participation

The Water Code requires that any water supplier must hold public hearings during

the creation or adaptation of a management plan. The state suggests this will encourage

the involvement of the diverse communities that use water services in that region. The

organization holding the hearing must advertise a notice involving the time and place so

the public can attend. Should a water supplier request a loan or grant, the voters of the

entire municipality must agree to the project and accept the state’s assistance.

Available Data Resources

There was only one instance of the state requiring cities provide data, and it was

found in the Water Plan. It states that water-related information is collected at all levels

of government and most institutions do not share information with each other and is

siloed within each organization. To achieve integrated water management, this

information needs to be readily available to organizations at each level of government.

Economic Pillar: Theme Findings

Conservation

Most of the codes relating to conservation are found in the Water Code. First, the

legislature finds that the waters of the state are a limited resource subject to increase

demands continually. As such, conservation is a statewide concern that is best achieved

at the local level. Because of this, the Water Code requires that any supplier of water for

municipal use may create and implement water conservation plans and may require that

water-saving devices be installed to save water with all new service contracts.

Additionally, these urban water suppliers need to develop water use targets and must

work toward these objectives. The state suggests that indoor residential water use is

provisionally standardized at 55 gallons per capita per day. The baselines established by

the municipality should be reduced by 10% by 2020 for commercial, industrial, and

institutional uses. Another way to ensure conservation is through conservation pricing.

Local public entities are encouraged by the state to enact allocation-based conservation

water pricing as an alternative method to make sure that water users conserve water,

increase efficiency and discourage waste. The Water Code goes on to state that metering

is one of the most efficient conservation tools and is required for all urban water suppliers

to ensure the implementation of water meters. The state is so strongly for metering that

this section of the Water Code supersedes and preempts all local city and county action

and legislation on this matter. The Public Resources Code includes one remark on the

subject. When the commission updates water efficiency standards every city, county, and

state agency must use those standards when approving or denying a building permit. The

building must satisfy each of the requirements listed by the Public Resources

Commission.

Reuse

Only the Water Code included concepts of city required reuse. First, the legislature

declares that, as California grows, the amount of stormwater runoff increases

dramatically due to the increase in impervious surfaces. To use this to the state’s

advantage, water agencies are required to expand opportunities for rainwater capture at

the local level. Additionally, the code requires that no public agency shall use potable

water for nonpotable uses. The policy suggests these uses include cemeteries, golf courses,

parks, highway landscapes, and industrial irrigation if suitable recycled water options are

available. Finally, the policy states that cities, counties and local agencies must adopt

building standards that include greywater criteria that must meet or exceed the state

greywater requirements.

Coordinate Surface/Ground Water Management

The legislature recognizes the growing water needs of the state and encourages the

conjunctive use of surface and groundwater supplies. The Water Plan suggests linking

local management of groundwater with the management of surface water within the

contexts of integrated water management as a way to create a more resilient future water

portfolio. It notes that while California law does not require groundwater management

plans, there are incentives to develop such a program to promote sustainable and efficient

management. The Water Code states the government’s position by declaring that the state

provides local groundwater agencies the authority and the technical and financial

assistance to manage groundwater sustainably – minimizing government intervention to

only when critically necessary to ensure that local agencies supervise their management

practices while encouraging local cooperation within the same water basins.

Environmental Pillar: Theme Findings

Restrict Groundwater Pumping

The Water Plan contained the only instance of local restrictions of groundwater

pumping. It states that groundwater management authorities should increase local

groundwater recharge to reduce groundwater depletion and resource resiliency.

Reduce Pollutant Impacts

The state acknowledges in the Water Code that clean water is an essential public

need because it protects the health of the people and their recreational ability, the

splendor of the environment, expansion of agriculture, safety of fish and wildlife, and

provision of safe drinking water. Local agencies must be primarily responsible for the

construction, operation, and maintenance of water purification facilities. However, since

water pollution is not concerned with political boundaries, local agencies must work

together and with the state to protect water quality.

Specifically, as discussed in the Government Participation section, the Water Code

states that counties, cities, and special districts can work together to create and

implement a watershed improvement plan. The purpose of this plan is to address major

sources of pollution in water, storm water, and runoff to maintain water quality within

that watershed. The members of this plan must report to and work with the state to ensure

that minimum safety requirements are met.

Restore/Maintain Healthy Ecosystem Function

First, in the Water Code, the state finds that local agencies best accomplish urban

creek and stream protection, restoration, and enhancement with assistance from the

state. It is the intent of the state to restore ecological viability to these environments

within an urban setting to enhance the aesthetic, recreation, and wildlife values. Local

agencies must handle organization and logistical concerns while the state is available for

funding and assistance as needed. Second, the Fish and Game Code states that continuing

population growth results in the increased demand for resources and results in the decline

of state wildlife and ecosystems. To combat that local agencies, landowners, and private

interests should develop Natural Community Conservation. Doing this in the local area

can provide a mechanism for landowners and public agencies to address ecosystem

concerns, promote unfragmented habitat areas, and provide options for mitigation. This

is an entirely voluntary program but will facilitate the restoration of ecosystems.

Unrepresented Themes

Nine sustainability themes were not found in any of the California documents, they

come from each of three pillars of sustainability – social, economic, and environmental.

These include the following:

 Maintain Human Health

 Equitable Distribution

 Socially Just

 Anticipate Future Need

 Institutional Organization to Prevent/Solve Water Conflict

 Find/Use Non-Traditional Water Sources

 Relax Control of Water Ways

 Protect Potential Natural Resources

 Restore River Flow and Lake Levels

As with Texas, the fact that some of these themes are missing is surprising. California

is so often considered as a bastion of liberal thought and environmental conservation and

yet, none of the state polies require local governments to protect potential natural

resources which seems like a contradiction to its reputation. To what extent the required

sustainability themes are picked up in city policies is shown in the next two chapters.

CHAPTER EIGHT:

WATER POLICY RESULTS FOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA.

City Information and Policies

The city of San Francisco was founded to begin missions work unlike many other

western cities which were founded for gold mining. However, the influx of wealth into

the town from gold mining, the harbor, and development lead to an increasing interest

in the arts and social progress leading to today’s abundance of culture, the spirit of

tolerance and overall feeling of brotherhood. The citizens of San Francisco tend to

educate and assert themselves and force change - a clear environmental example is the

legendary John Muir, who worked tirelessly to save the Hetch Hetchy Valley from dams

(Conmy, 1958). Today, the city supplies its drinking water from the Hetch Hetchy

Regional Water System; the system delivers the water from a reservoir in Yosemite

National Park and through local watersheds to its residents ("Sources and Supply

Planning," 2013).

Demographically, the city of San Francisco is diverse, with 41.9% of the residents

listed as white, 33.3% of Asian descent, 15.1% Hispanic, and 6.1% African American. There

were 805,235 people counted in the 2010 census and an estimated 831,442 citizens in

2013 – a four percent change during those three years. There are 17,179.1 residents per

square mile as the city, itself, is 46.87 square miles ("San Francisco (city), California,"

2013).

San Francisco is also distinctive regarding climate. Because of the diverse

topography and bay location (see figure 8.1), San Francisco has varying microclimates.

Overall, the city is categorized as part of the Mediterranean climate with moist, mild

winters and dry summers. Summer high temperatures range from 60 to 70 degrees

Fahrenheit with winter low temperatures between 45 and 50 degrees Fahrenheit. Typical

average rainfall totals are 21 to 22 inches, where 80% of the total annual rainfall occurs

between November and March each year (Null, 1995).

Figure 8.1. San Francisco City Limits and Water

* Cartographer: Stefen David

Six San Francisco policies involve water, five found in the code of ordinances and one

added plan. These policies relate to water but also involve the rulings on other city-wide

development concerns.

 Building Code: the purpose of the code is to establish minimum requirements

for public safety when considering building and renovation of any structure within

the city limits. This includes but is not limited to, means of egress, stability,

disability access, sanitation, adequate lighting, ventilation, and energy

conservation, safety from fire and other hazards, regulate and control the

demolition of all buildings and structure, and the quarrying, grading, and

excavation of land.

 Environmental Code: this code combines all the various environmental

regulations and requirements and compiles them into this one code. It covers

environmentally preferable purchasing options, integrated pest management,

healthy air and clean transportation, green building requirements, greenhouse gas

emissions targets, urban forests, green business program, plastic bag reduction

ordinance, solar energy, mandatory recycling and composting, drink tap

ordinance, bottled drinking water, and clean construction.

 Health Code: the Health Code covers many topics – San Francisco’s concerns

about the health of the citizens is wide-ranging and clearly relevant to the

government. The health code includes everything from policy about animal

sacrifice, communicable diseases, garbage and refuse, food and dairy, meat and

meat products, bedbugs, smoking prohibition, hazardous materials,

chlorofluorocarbons, and healthy products and healthy children.

 Plumbing Code: The Plumbing Code uses the California Plumbing Code as a

baseline and adapts to specific needs within San Francisco. In all, the code covers

permit and inspections, public nuisances, poor sewer repair, water conserving

fixtures, water supply and distribution, sanitary drainage, and storm drainage.

 Public Works Code: The purpose of this code is to organize the responsibilities

of the government and the citizens to maintain and improve the city of San

Francisco. This covers topics like sewer system management, anti-litter

receptacles, street vendors, maintenance, underground pipes, wires, and conduits,

public telephone booths, graffiti removal, shopping carts, and reclaimed water use.

 Urban Water Management Plan: The San Francisco Public Utilities

Commission is required by the state of California to present and update this

management plan every five years. This ensures the long-term reliability,

conservation, and efficient use of California water supply. The UWMP covers water

system supply and demand, water supply reliability, drought response stages,

demand management measures, and impacts of climate change.

The results from the analysis of San Francisco’s water policy are shown in Table 8.1. Each

city document is shown where the frequency of each sustainability theme is displayed.

The bottom of the table includes a final tally of each theme’s frequency per code and the

overall percentage of sustainability based on the total number of points (out of the 21

available).

Table 8.1. San Francisco Matrix Results

Theme

Building Code

Environmental

Code

Health Code

Plumbing Code

Public Works

Code

Urban Water

Management

Plan

TOTALS

SOCIAL

Quality of Life

Meets Basic Human Need

Maintain Human Safety

Maintain Human Health

Reliable Service

Democratic Water Decisions

Government Participation

Community Participation

Available Data Resources

Pricing

Equitable Distribution

Socially Just

ECONOMIC

Scarcity of Resources

Conservation

Reuse

Anticipate Future Need

Government Approach

Coordinate Surface/Ground Water

Management

Organizations for Water Conflict

Non-Traditional Water Sources

ENVIRONMENTAL

Reduce Human Impact

Restrict Groundwater Pumping

Relax Control of Waterways

Reduce Pollutant Impacts

Ecosystem Function

Restore/Maintain Healthy Ecosystem

Function

Protect Potential Natural Resources

Restore/Maintain River Flow & Lake Levels

Total Points (out of 21)

Total in Percentage

19%

76%

43%

71%

90%

Total Frequency

138

Social Pillar: Theme Findings

Meets Basic Human Need

Per the Urban Water Management Plan the city’s average annual demand is 265

mgd, additionally, the city reservoirs hold 413 million gallons of water – approximately a

five-day supply at the current consumption rates. Additionally, the Environmental Code

includes a chapter entitled “the Drink Tap Ordinance” that works to improve access to

free and safe drinking water by providing additional bottle filling stations in public areas

to serve both residents and visitors.

Maintains Human Safety

The only mention of human safety came from the Urban Water Management Plan

which states that the city must meet the estimated average annual demand of 300 mgd

under a planned or emergency shutdown of a major facility. This ensures that the

residents of the city will still have access to safe drinking water, as is required by this

theme.

Maintains Human Health

The Urban Water Management Plan states that water quality must meet state and

federal law, must be either clean, unfiltered water from the Hetch Hetchy or filtered water

from local watersheds. Additionally, those watersheds must be protected to ensure long-

term public health. This is one of the few times that the city has expressly connected the

health of the ecosystem with the health of the people; especially as the plan goes on to say

that the management of the natural resource and physical system of water must be

sustainable to protect public health and safety.

Additionally, the Health Code includes the management of the Hunters Point

Shipyard renovations to protect human health and water quality through the

redevelopment and cleanup of Naval base byproducts.

Finally, the Public Works Code includes requirements for health and safety

precautions. Managers of industry can and are required to take all necessary actions to

halt or prevent the discharge of pollutants that may be an imminent threat to public health

into the sewer systems. Furthermore, should any emergency action need to be taken to

protect life, health, or property is exempt from any permit requirements. This ensures

that steps can be made by cutting through the red tape and ensuring water quality as well

as human health and safety.

Reliable Service

The city of San Francisco, in the Urban Water Management Plan, states that

reliability is expressed as the system’s ability to deliver water during drought.

Additionally, the city’s water supply is affected by short-term outages due to water quality

events. Specifically, because the Hetch Hetchy water supply is not filtered it is subject to

strict water quality standards, weather events can increase the turbidity of the water.

During such weather episodes, the water is either diverted to local storage or shut off

entirely until turbidity levels return to acceptable levels. While waiting for decreased

turbidity, the entire water supply comes from the Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant

and the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plan, both provided by Bay Area reservoirs.

The Health Code continues this concern for reliability by compelling the public

utilities to use the seven groundwater basins in conjunction with surface water to improve

the reliability of water services in San Francisco.

Government Participation

The Health Code includes a requirement that the city only uses non-potable water

for cleaning parks, streets, and public spaces. Along with this requirement was the

stipulation that, within two years of this ordinance, the City Administration must consult

with other city departments, boards, and commissions to publish a study about the

requirements for using non-potable water in this way. That report is then sent to the City

Council and the Mayor for review. Indeed, this includes almost all the departments of the

city including the Recreation and Parks Department, Department of Public Works, Port

of San Francisco, San Francisco International Airport, Department of Real Estate, and

the Capital Planning Committee. This is not the only instance of interagency coordination,

as it is also required in the use of non-potable and reclaimed water within the boundaries

of the city, as required by the Public Works Code.

Community Participation

The main requirements revolve around the Sunshine Act. All the legislative process

must be open to citizen assessment, meaning that almost all data are required to be

available. Citizen participation is essential in the political process as is evident in the

creation of the Urban Water Management Plan which was formed through the

coordination between city agencies and public input. The City works to educate residents

about water conservation and the environmental, economic, and health benefits of tap

water, to promote the use of non-potable and recycled water, and to encourage

conservation initiatives.

Available Data Resources

The Building Code recognizes the public’s need for available data. While these data

are made available to the citizens, there are fees associated with the reproduction of such

records. The second mention of available data is in the Health Code which requires that

the water department makes the current listing of all certified water testers available for

public use. This ensures that those consumers who have cross connection control devices

can annually find a city-endorsed inspector.

Equitable Distribution

This theme states that water for domestic, urban, industrial, or agricultural use is

allocated proportionately. Throughout all the policies there is an emphasis on appropriate

water use. The Public Works Code and the Health Code require that reclaimed or non-

potable water be used whenever possible in construction, specifically for soil compaction

and dust control. The code continues by stating that non-potable and reclaimed water be

used for greenbelt irrigation, agricultural irrigation, office building use, filling of habitat

lakes, or industrial processes.

Socially Just

The Public Works Code also includes requirements for assistance in the

implementation of non-potable and reclaimed water systems including incentives and

discounts. The Urban Water Management Plan clarifies the water and wastewater rate

structure. There is a two-tier water as well as a wastewater rate system with a five-year

rate increase used to promote conservation. Non-residential sewers are charged based on

average pollution output. Any violation of water use restrictions may result in flow

restricting devices or the discontinuation of water services.

Economic Pillar: Theme Findings

Conservation

San Francisco is concerned about water security and works to increase water

conservation. Currently, the residents of San Francisco use 92.2 gallons per capita per day

(gpcd). This follows the state water conservation bill of 2009 which requires 124.5 gpcd

by 2020. The government of San Francisco realizes the importance of conservation and

is determined to continue to reduce water use even though they are compliant with state

law. The Urban Water Management Plan states that there is still the savings potential of

five million gallons per day by 2018. The Environmental Code confirms this by stating

that the city is dedicated to being good environmental stewards by promoting water

conservation efforts.

The Building Code includes several mentions of conservation in construction and

building projects. Specifically, the policy states that it is necessary to conserve water

supply by managing the current demand in commercial buildings (including hotels and

motels) by requiring the installation of conservation devices in all commercial buildings

by January 1, 2017. The conservation devices include low-flow showerheads, faucet

aerators, low-flow urinals, and low-flow toilets. The Environmental Code takes this a step

further by requiring conservation devices in all city-owned facilities. Expanding this

requirement for single- and multi-family residential buildings, the Urban Water

Management Plan requires homeowners to comply with the implementation of

conservation devices before selling that home. To incentivize the public into saving water,

the Management Plan also implements a conservation pricing schedule that rewards

customers for reducing water used.

The Urban Water Management Plan also includes the state-required water

shortage plan on pages 61-62. This three-stage drought response plan includes

requirements for residential and non-residential buildings.

 Stage One: trigger 10-20% water shortage – target water reduction 5-10%

o Voluntary rationing request to customers

o Customers are alerted to water supply conditions and reminded of existing

use requirements and prohibitions

o Education on and acceleration of incentive programs (example used is toilet

replacement rebates)

 Stage Two: trigger 21-50% water shortage – target water reduction 11-20%

o All customers receive an allotment of water based on inside/outside water

usage from the previous year

o Water use above given allotment is subject to extra charges, installation of

flow restrictors, or complete water shut-off

 Stage Three: trigger greater than 50% shortage – target water reduction greater

than 20%

o Same actions as stage two with further reduced allotments

In addition to these stages there are potential prohibitions that can be enacted during

either stage two or three, as listed on page 62 of the Urban Water Management Plan.

 Water waste, including flooding or runoff into streets or gutters, is prohibited

 Hoses cannot be used to clean sidewalks, driveways, patios, or other hard surfaces

areas.

 Hoses used for any purpose must have a shutoff valve

 Restaurants may only serve water upon request

 Potable water cannot be used for decorative fountains

 Use of additional water is not allowed for new landscaping unless low water use

designs or drip-irrigation systems are employed

 Water service connections for new construction granted only if building includes

water saving fixtures in the plumbing system

 Use of potable for construction purposes prohibited unless essential

 Irrigation of lawns and landscaping of any type with potable water must be reduced

by at least the amount specified for outside use.

 Verified water waste serves as evidence that the amount allocated to that building

is excessive and is subject to review, reduction, or termination of services

 Water use for all cooling purposes must be recycled

 The use of groundwater or reclaimed water for irrigation of golf courses and

median areas as well as street sweepers and washers is strongly encouraged

Reuse

According to the Public Works Code, nonpotable and reclaimed water should be

developed for use when reasonable and consistent with economic need, public health and

safety, and ecosystem protection. The policy goes on to state that the department of public

works discharges around 100 million gallons, per day, of treated wastewater into the San

Francisco Bay. If this water was given further treatment it could be used for irrigation and

other nonpotable purposes it would benefit the city. The department must develop a long-

range plan to use this and other reclaimed water.

Even outside of the government reuse is important. The Urban Water Management

Plan identifies recycled water projects to increase the implementation of recycled water

projects in the city. Currently, the reuse of water is limited but is quickly being expanded.

The Public Works Code states that there are areas of the city that are designated for the

use of reclaimed water, they include Lake Merced, West Portal Avenue North to Vincente

Street, the Great Highway Area, the Golden Gate Park, 39th Avenue, Lincoln Park, the

Richmond Tunnel, Eastside, and Presidio. To encourage recycled water use, the Urban

Water Management Plan lists proposed actions to stimulate use. These actions include

requiring that all new or remodeled buildings and new landscapes have dual plumbing

systems to use in outdoor irrigation, toilet flushing, and industrial processes, additionally

construction projects must use non-potable water for soil compaction and dust control.

Anticipate Future Need

San Francisco recognizes the need to diversify water sources. The Health Code

describes the situation plainly by stating that San Francisco is a city on a peninsula

surrounded on three sides by saltwater and due to the potential for earthquakes or other

natural disasters there is great potential for the interruption of water supply. The policy

acknowledges that the development of alternative water sources will assist in meeting the

future need of the citizens of San Francisco. Both the Health Code and the Urban Water

Management Plan lists ways to achieve this need through promoting the values of non-

potable water and identifying new water sources, like groundwater, transferred water,

ocean desalination, the Tuolumne River, and recycled water, in which to invest.

Coordinate Surface and Groundwater Management

The San Francisco government seems to recognize the importance of successful

surface and groundwater management integration. The Health Code states that the

unmanaged use of groundwater in San Francisco creates a risk of harm to a common

resource which is shared by all of San Francisco residents as part of the city’s Pueblo water

rights to all water, both surface and underground. The risks of unmanaged groundwater

use include land subsistence, aquifer contamination, sea water intrusion, and adverse

impacts on the natural streams and lakes in the area. Therefore, it is the policy of the city

to make use of groundwater when economically and environmentally feasible and to

prevent the use of groundwater when necessary to protect health, safety and the welfare

of the people.

The Urban Water Management Plan also has a very innovative groundwater

storage and recovery project that attempts to balance the use of groundwater and surface

water to increase water supply reliability during the dry season. This proposed project

extracts groundwater, however, during years of normal or above average precipitation,

the project would, instead, provide surface water. This reduces the groundwater pumped

and is called ‘in lieu recharge.’ The project is expected to result in the storage of

approximately 61,000 acre-feet of water.

Find and Use Non-Traditional Water Sources

To encourage the use of alternative water resources, the Public Works Code

requires that only non-potable and recycled water be used in the irrigation, cleaning of

parks, streets, and public spaces. This also includes the use of rainwater and greywater

used for toilet and urinal flushing as well as irrigation demands. The Urban Water

Management Plan also involves the consideration of an increase in the development of

recycled water. Recycled water is currently used on a limited basis for in-plant wash-

downs.

Environmental Pillar: Theme Findings

Restrict Groundwater Pumping

While the Health Code did not specifically state that there is a restriction to

groundwater pumping, it does state that it is the policy of San Francisco to make use of

groundwater where economically and environmentally possible and to prevent the use of

groundwater when necessary to protect the health and safety of the citizens. There is,

however, a San Francisco groundwater supply project described in the Urban Water

Management Plan which proposes up to six wells in the western part of San Francisco to

extract up to four million gallons of groundwater per day for use in emergency water

supply purposes. This water would be extracted and blended with imported surface water

before entering the municipal water system.

Reduce Pollutant Impacts

Reducing the impact of pollutants is an important part of San Francisco water

policy. The Public Works Code, on page 9, defines the term ‘pollutant’ as any straw, metal,

glass, plastic, flammable substance, garbage, hazardous materials, noxious substance,

bioaccumulative toxic, high-temperature wastewater, or any liquid, solid, or gas that may

limit the use of reclaimed water. The Environmental Code states that the city must protect

the quality of San Francisco ground and surface waters by eliminating the use of

chemicals known to contaminate local water resources through either toxicity,

bioaccumulation, or persistence. To do so, no person, corporation, or company is allowed

to dump any pollutant on any street, lot, land, water, or waterway in San Francisco

without first obtaining a permit. The Public Works Code enhances this requirement where

it is unlawful to discharge wastewater without a permit. If an accidental or threatened

discharge could cause danger to the public or is a violation of the no-dumping policy, then

a written report involving the nature, volume, duration, and remedial and preventative

measures must be presented within five days of the discharge. However, the following

discharges are exempt from permit requirement uncontaminated pumped groundwater,

foundation drains, air conditioning condensate, irrigation water, water line and hydrant

flushing, residential car washing, firefighting, and dechlorinated pool discharge. Should

the discharge of wastewater violate the articles listed in the Public Works Code, the

general manager can issue a cease order; should it go unheeded, the permit can be

revoked or suspended.

Wastewater treatment plants are not designed to treat drug compounds and other

pollutants treatment plants are unable to handle. Any grab of a discharger’s wastewater

shall not have the following pollutants outside of the given parameters: pH between 6 and

9.5, dissolved sulfides of 0.5 mg/l, temperature above 125* Fahrenheit (52* Celsius), or

hydrocarbon oil and grease of 100 mg/l. To curb the oil and grease buildup, all food

establishments are required to have a grease capture system and a wastewater discharge

permit. To reduce other pollutants including an increased pH and dissolved sulfides, all

construction must obtain a construction site runoff permit before beginning any project.

Groundwater contamination is also discussed in the Environmental Code, the

Public Works Code, and the Health Code. The Health Code states that groundwater

contamination is strictly prohibited, specifically in the circumstances involving wells and

underground storage tanks. The Environmental Code suggests that wells can serve as

conduits for chemicals to contaminate groundwater should the wells not be properly

constructed. Thus, there are minimum requirements for the construction, modification,

and destruction of wells. Finally, the Public Works Code notes that urban runoff is a

significant cause of pollution as it leads to the loss of natural purification processes as the

land is lost to impervious surfaces and an increase in new pollutant sources.

Restore/Maintain Healthy Ecosystem Function

There are not many instances where the policies require the protection of the

ecosystem. In fact, only the Health Code and Urban Water Management Plan make

mention of ecosystem function. The Health Code states that the Hunter’s Point Shipyard

redevelopment is designed to not only protect human health but also to ensure the safety

of the surrounding ecosystem. The Urban Water Management Plan, on the other hand,

suggests that to maintain high water quality, the city should continue to implement

watershed protection and to enhance sustainability in all systems the city should manage

natural resources and physical systems to protect watershed ecosystems and to safeguard

public health. In each of these instances, the concern for the ecosystem is directly tied to

concerns for human health.

Protect Potential Natural Resources

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission identified potential future uses for

the seven groundwater basins found throughout the region. The Health Code lists these

possible uses for untapped groundwater as supplying water for domestic uses, irrigation

of city parks, landscapes, and natural water features, emergency water supply, combined

with surface water to improve reliability of water system, and industrial uses to offset

potable water demands.

Summary

Five of the six codes and plans analyzed included some of the sustainability

themes. The Plumbing Code was the only one that did not have any sustainability

considerations. As the second sustainable city researched, it was expected that most, if

not all, of the sustainability themes would be found throughout the documents. Indeed,

that was the case as only two of the themes are not a part of the water policy framework

in San Francisco. As with all other researched locations up to this point, there is no

organization or plan to create an organization to prevent or solve water conflict between

citizens. The second missing theme is to restore or maintain river flow and lake levels.

This could be because there is only one significant lake within the city boundaries so it

does not hold as much weight as this theme would have with cities that have more water

features. Overall, the city’s water policy registers as 90% sustainable exceeding Austin’s

86%; so, while there is room to grow the city is the most sustainable in this dissertation.

CHAPTER NINE:

WATER POLICY RESULTS FOR SAN JOSE, CA.

San Jose was situated around the Guadalupe River, due to the water needs of

agriculture. After the start of World War II, there was a significant shift in the city’s main

economy. In 1943, IBM built its first West Coast facility in San Jose – leading to rapid

growth and facilities from many other major industrial organizations. As organizations

began to make San Jose their home, so too did unemployed peoples from all over the

country, looking for work (Trounstine, 1982). All this growth pointed to the need for

immediate water, sewer systems, and transportation services.

The population of San Jose continues to grow and has increased 4.8% from

945,942 at the 2010 census to 998,537 when estimated in 2013. The city covers 176.53

square miles, equating to 5,358.7 inhabitants per square miles. Regarding demographics,

the 2010 census revealed that 28.7% of the population was white, 33.2% considered

Hispanic, 32.0% Asian, and 3.2% African American. (“San Jose (city), California,” 2013).

San Jose has the same approximate climate conditions and temperature variances

as San Francisco. One significant different is that San Jose is in the rain shadow of the

Santa Cruz Mountains (See Figure 9.1) leading to rainfall totals that are lower than its

counterpart city – ranging from 13 to 20 inches annually although most of this rainfall

still occurs during the region's wet season from November to May (Miller, 1999).

Figure 9.1. San Jose City Limits and Water

* Cartographer: Stefen David

San Jose Policies

Four codes and one plan discuss water within the city of San Jose, all of which are

comparable to the researched San Francisco water policy.

1. Building and Construction Code: This code covers all aspects of building

within San Jose; this includes excavation and grading, flood hazard area

regulation, geologic hazard protocols and earthquake hazard reduction, fire

prevention, housing conditions for rentals and mobile homes, fencing requisites,

hazardous materials storage, solar energy system regulations, preservation of

historic landmarks and communities, and green building regulations.

2. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan: This plan was created for and by the county

of Santa Clara, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Santa Clara Valley

Transportation Authority and the cities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and San Jose. It

covers the protection and recovery of natural resources, specifically endangered

species. This is done through streamlining permitting processes for developmental

infrastructure and maintenance projects, regulations on land use, required impact

assessments, conservation strategies for each endangered species, and a

monitoring and adaptive management program.

3. Health and Safety Code: Found in the Code of Ordinances, the Health and

Safety Code focuses on solid waste management, mosquito abatement, the aerial

spray of pesticides, regulations on smoking and tobacco products, rules against

ozone-depleting compounds, and prohibitions on graffiti.

4. Public Works and Improvements Code: This not only gives the Public Works

Director authority to manage the department but it also provides conditions for

design and building contracts, public area improvements, maintenance and

improvement district requirements, and stipulations for library and community

facility benefits.

5. Public Utilities Code: This covers all the utilities within the city limits, including

municipal water systems descriptions of services, service areas, rates and charges,

potable water franchises, water waste prevention and shortage measures, water

efficient landscape standards, sewer regulations, reclaimed water usage rules,

storm drainage. Non-water utilities covered are underground electric facilities,

cable television systems, gas and electric franchises, as well as solar utilities.

There were 56 instances of sustainability found within all the water policies in San

Jose. Table 9.1 shows the analysis of San Jose water policies. The numbers through each

column are the frequency with which each theme was present in all policy. Each policy

receives one point for each theme found in each policy. Those points are converted into a

percentage (out of 21 possible). The total frequency of each theme is listed at the bottom

of the table.

Social Pillar: Theme Findings

Meet Basic Human Need

The Public Utilities Code states that a dwelling, or equivalent dwelling unit, is land

in which the projected use includes 400 gallons of municipal water per day. This is well

beyond the suggested gallons per day as listed in the theme definition, assuring that the

people that receive municipal water can meet their water needs.

Indeed, the Public Utilities Code continues to state that the city will endeavor to

supply water dependably and safety to adequately guarantee to meet the reasonable needs

and requirements of customers, but cannot guarantee complete freedom from

interruption. The policy does not state what ‘adequately guarantee’ or ‘reasonable’ is

defined as but does recognize the necessity of meeting human water needs.

Table 9.1. San Jose Matrix Results

Theme

Building &

Construction

Code

Valley Habitat

Plan

Health & Safety

Code

Public Works &

Improvements

Code

Public Utilities

Code

TOTAL

SOCIAL

Quality of Life

Meets Basic Human Need

Maintain Human Safety

Maintain Human Health

Reliable Service

Democratic Water Decisions

Participatory Management

Community Participation

Available Data Resources

Pricing

Equitable Distribution

Socially Just

ECONOMIC

Scarcity of Resources

Conservation

Reuse

Anticipate Future Need

Government Approach

Coordinate Surface/Ground Water

Management

Organizations for Water Conflict

Non-Traditional Water Sources

ENVIRONMENTAL

Reduce Human Impact

Restrict Groundwater Pumping

Relax Control of Waterways

Reduce Pollutant Impacts

Ecosystem Function

Restore/ Maintain Healthy Ecosystem

Function

Protect Potential Natural Resources

Maintain/ Restore River Flow & Lake Levels

Total Points (out of 21)

Total in Percentage

19%

29%

24%

52%

Total Frequency

The only time when municipal water may not meet customer’s needs is during

planned or emergency outages. The department will notify, when feasible, customers of

scheduled interruptions and the time and duration of that blackout. Emergency outages

will be handled with the shortest possible delay in services. When there are water

shortages, the city will apportion water. This ensures that those who receive municipal

water services can meet their daily need without the concern of a long-term loss of water.

Maintain Human Safety & Maintain Human Health

There are two instances where the policy discusses human safety and one on

human health. The sustainability theme defines maintaining human security as planned

steps in case of purification failure or water shortage. However, as is the case in the other

cities, San Jose considers the protection from water more important than the protection

of water in this regard, and both instances of the human safety theme and the single

instance of human health involve protecting citizens from flood hazards.

The Building and Construction Code lists that there are safety hazards associated

with living in a flood prone area and in reducing the impacts of flooding protects human

lives and health. This is done through restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous

to health, safety, and real property due to water or erosion hazards or which result from

the damage of erosion or flood height and velocity, by controlling the alteration of natural

floodplains, stream channels and natural protective barriers which help accommodate

flood waters, and by preventing and regulating construction of flood barriers which

unnaturally divert floodwaters, potentially increasing flood risk. Finally, the Building and

Construction Code suggests that public parks also serve as stormwater detention facilities

where there is the opportunity for 8,000 square feet of uninterrupted turf.

Reliable Service

Water systems must be reliable to ensure that basic needs are being met. This is

paramount to ensure the safety and health of the citizens of San Jose. As is discussed in

the human safety and health section, the city works diligently to ensure a high level of

reliability. Also, the Valley Habitat Plan states that public projects associated with

ensuring continuous water supplies, flood protection, recreation, or transportation must

be able to promptly receive an endangered species permit to complete the project quickly.

Participatory Management

Integrated water decisions are essential to the long-term sustainability of the water

system. The policy of San Jose only includes one code that conveys the importance of this

principle. The Valley Habitat Plan was created by the county, water utility, and

surrounding cities because the endangered species of the area require a coordinated

approach for survival. The plan also states that local land and water management agencies

that are not a part of the original plan originators are still essential to the success of the

project. Not only can the coordinated approach between local agencies ensure the survival

of endangered species but it also can significantly reduce costs and safeguard the viability

of the plan.

Socially Just

The implementation and maintenance of water systems should not unduly stress

any one citizen. The Public Utilities Code includes three variations on this theme. First,

when the city council finds that the application fee for new hookups would be unfair or

inequitable or would result in the unnecessary hardship to the applicant, the council may

resolve to grant an adjustment to or exemption from the fee. Second, if the payment of

the sewage treatment plant connection fee would cause significant financial hardship to

business, that business can apply to the city council for permission to pay in installments

instead of one lump sum. Finally, the council can waive the collection of connection fees

for the construction of very low-income households.

Environmental Pillar: Theme Findings

Conservation

Conservation was the second most coded theme within the policies of San Jose.

The majority of these topics were found in the Public Utilities Code; however, the Building

and Construction Code also includes statements about the importance of water

conservation. Specifically, the code has a section on green building standards which are

intended to reduce waste of all kinds, including the reduction of water use and

encouraging the use of recycled waste water. According to the Building and Construction

Code, standard buildings use 16% of the world’s total water resources making it essential

to reduce use on a day-to-day basis.

The rest of the codes are in the Public Utilities Code where it lists that San Jose is

dedicated to long-term water conservation to address chronic water shortages, protect the

aquifers of the city, and prevent land subsidence. To do this, there are permanent water

conservation measures which list specific requirements based on activity or business.

First, and most generally, no person shall waste water from any source and must fix any

leaking, broken, or defective plumbing, sprinkler, or irrigation systems within five days

of knowing about the problem. Second, no person shall use water in a way that causes

run-off, pooling, or puddling of water on sidewalks, driveways, gutters or streets. Third,

for restaurants, water is not to be served by a food establishment unless specifically

requested by a customer. Fourth, all hotels, motels, and places for lodging must

prominently display a notice in each bathroom giving the guest an option to conserve

water by not having towels and linens washed daily. Fifth, commercial car washes must

use one of three options for washing systems; mechanical automatic washing with water

recycling equipment, a bucket, and handwashing, or a hose equipped with a self-closing

valve. Sixth, the building and construction industry cannot use potable water for

construction purposes, such as dust control, without prior approval via written exemption

from the city.

The last major industry listed in the Building and Construction Code is landscape.

This is divided between landscape irrigation and landscape design. Landscape irrigation

has many regulations to ensure that water is conserved. The use of potable water to

irrigate outdoor landscapes between the hours of 10:00 AM and 8:00 PM is strictly

prohibited unless using a bucket, hand-held container, or hose with self-closing valve. If

using an automated sprinkler system then the system can run for no more than 15 minutes

per station unless using low-flow drip lines with the flow of fewer than two gallons an

hour and a 71% efficiency standard. This does not apply to golf courses, lawn bowling

courses, or lawn tennis courts. Finally, if using an automated sprinkler system, it must

include a sensor that suspends or alters irrigation operations during unfavorable weather

conditions. All irrigation must be avoided during windy conditions, rain, or freezing rain.

Landscape design must ensure that all new or rehabilitated landscapes are water

efficient to promote the conservation and efficient use of water and prevent water waste

through regulation. To do this, landscapes must achieve water efficiency through meeting

one of three criteria listed on pages 41-44, plant type restrictions, water budget

calculations, or recycled water options.

 Plant-type restrictions

o Turf cannot total more than 25% of landscape with no turf allowed in non-

residential landscapes

o Plants installed in at least 75% of the landscape must be ‘very low water use’

or ‘no water use’ plants

o All exposed soils must be covered by three inches of mulch

o Water features cannot total more than 20% of the complete landscape

o All irrigation must be automatic with a soil moisture sensor

 Water budget calculations

o Using the Water Use Classification of Landscape Series to ensure that all

new landscapes are less than or equal to a 1.0 on the scale

o All existing landscapes must be less than or equal to a 0.8 on the scale

o The irrigation efficiency must equal 75% for overhead spray and 81% for

drip irrigation

 Recycled Water

o 90% of the total landscape area must be irrigated with recycled water.

The final section related to the conservation of water is the drought preparedness

requirements. The city is subject to periodic droughts which require the city council to

take steps to protect the water system and the citizens that depend on reliable access to

water. Different drought response stages depend on the percentage of water shortage. If

any person seeks exemption from any of the drought regulations, that citizen must file a

written request for that waiver. The request must explain why there is no other alternative

to potable water and why no other source of water (outside of potable water) can be used.

Any request must be accompanied by an exemption review fee.

 10% Water Shortage

o A reduction in all landscape irrigation based on a schedule established by

the city council

 25% Water Shortage

o No filling of ornamental lakes and ponds with potable water except as

needed to sustain aquatic life of significant value and have been a part of the

water feature before the drought

o No washing of vehicles unless at a commercial carwash that uses

recirculating or reused water.

o It is unlawful for any person to use potable water to clean sidewalks,

driveways, patios, decks, tennis courts, parking lots, or any exterior paved

and hard-surfaced area except with a bucket or prior approval from the

director.

o It is unlawful for any person to operate a decorative fountain with potable

water unless recirculating, non-misting, and fully lined.

 30% Water Shortage

o No person shall cause, permit, or allow initial filling or refilling of more than

one foot of water in a residential swimming pool or spa, except to refill after

repairing leaks

o It is unlawful to install new outdoor landscapes or plantings from May

through October in an area with overhead sprinkler systems unless the

system is disconnected, removed, or converted to drip systems.

 Exceptions

 the installation of drought tolerant/native plants

 the installation of plants and trees for consumption

 the installation started before the 30% water shortage council

resolution

o It is unlawful to use or allow the utilization of a fire hydrant except for

firefighting purposes or water company required maintenance.

 40% or Greater Water Shortage

o No owner or manager shall fail to initiate repairs for leaking, broken, or

defective water pipes, faucets, plumbing fixtures, other water appliances,

sprinklers, watering, or irrigation systems within 48 hours of knowing and

must complete the repair as soon as practical.

o It is unlawful for any person to fill any pool, fountain, or spa.

Reuse

Outside of the reuse required during a drought, the Building and Construction

Code and the Public Utilities Code also include other obligatory water reuses within the

city. The Building and Construction Code states that all single-family dwellings must have

all the roof rain leaders and downspouts drain onto splash blocks that flow to onsite

landscapes and must be disconnected from storm water drainage systems. If this proves

technically infeasible, the building official can use an equivalent alternative

The Public Utilities Code focuses on the reuse of water in irrigation systems by

stating that no person can use, permit or allow the use of potable water to irrigate a

landscape when that landscape has been fitted with a recycled or reclaimed water

irrigation system. All the recycled water irrigation systems must be metered separately

from potable water systems, have no onsite cross connections to drinking water systems,

and be designed in accordance with applicable laws. If a user is expected to use substantial

quantities of recycled water from a sewage treatment plant, that individual can apply to

be a ‘special recycled water user’ allowing the user to pay the sanitary sewer connection

fee in installment payments instead of one lump sum. The last mention of water reuse is

in landscape design plan criteria. It states that all decorative water features, including

ponds, lakes, waterfalls, and fountains, must use recirculating systems or recycled water

where available.

Environmental Pillar: Theme Findings

Reduced Pollutant Impact

The Valley Habitat Plan and Public Utilities Code are the only policies that include

mention of pollution prevention. Per the sustainability theme, there must be language

that ensures that additional materials do not significantly impact water systems. This

includes pollution like point source pollution and hazardous substances as well as

minimizing sediment runoff and erosion of stream banks.

The most general regulation found in the Public Utilities Code specifies that it is

unlawful to discharge any sewage, industrial waste, or polluted water into any storm

drain, natural outlet or channel without a valid National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) permit. Even with a NPDES permit, a water user must not discharge any

pollutant in sufficient quantity to injure or cause interference with a plant or to constitute

a hazard to humans or animals. It also broadly states that landscape projects need to

minimize soil erosion, runoff, and miscellaneous water waste. To do this, the project must

avoid, as much as possible, any disruption of natural drainage patterns and undisturbed

soils.

The code goes on to address sewer use regulations - preventing the introduction of

pollutants into the sanitary sewer system which passes through the treatment works of

the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant. This ensures that those

pollutants do not interfere with the ability of the plant to treat, discharge, and recycle

wastewater.

The Public Utilities Code then goes a step further by addressing the proper

response to an accidental discharge of pollutants into the water system. Within one hour

of becoming aware of an accidental discharge of waste or a substance which would be

considered hazardous waste, the industrial water user must notify the Environmental

Service Department by phone or in person. This ensures that countermeasures can be

taken to minimize damages to the sanitary sewer system, plant, and treatment processes

as well as the water system as a whole. Within five days after the spill, the water user must

send a detailed written statement describing the causes of the discharge and the measures

taken to prevent further such emissions. This process, however, does not release the user

of any liability due to the spill and that individual or business is still fully responsible for

cleanup and prevention. Indeed, any person who knowingly or negligently discharges

water or wastewater which causes pollution will be liable to the city; $10,000 on the first

day, $25,000 on the second day, and $50,000 for the third day and every day after that.

The Valley Habitat Plan addresses reducing the pollution of waterways regarding

the protection of endangered species habitats within an urban setting. It recognizes that

an increase in impermeable surfaces leads to increased runoff, especially during storms.

The runoff leads to increased scouring or incisions of local creeks and an increase in

sediment load, an alteration of hydrology, and decreased groundwater recharge.

Additionally, an increase of pollutants like grease, oils, and pesticides affect the biological

and physical characteristics of the aquatic habitat. Because of this, new and renovation

construction projects must endeavor to reduce the number of impermeable surfaces.

The Valley Habitat Plan also acknowledges the significance of plants on water

quality. This is shown in two specific instances. First, if open conduits are used as part of

a stormwater management system, those conduits must be planted with grasses and

vegetation to filter and trap sediments, pesticides, and fertilizers from the runoff; thus,

reducing the overall pollutant load. Second, the implementation of riparian buffers, or

setbacks, improves water quality by intercepting non-point source pollution in surface

and shallow subsurface waters as well as reducing sedimentation by stabilizing channels.

Because of the listed benefits of riparian buffers, they should be implemented where

possible.

The final instances of reducing pollutants found with the Valley Habitat Plan

describes the steps to protect water from ditch or channel construction. When

constructing or reconstructing a ditch, the project manager must utilize a design that

avoids directly dumping ditch water into surface water when practical. If not practical,

there must be an implementation of sediment management and minimization measures

to trap sediment. Second, if any construction disturbs the ground by a stream known to

contain high levels of mercury, the following steps from page 176 must be taken:

 Avoid disturbing the area of high mercury

 If the soil is disturbed, it must be tested.

 Tested soil must be remediated if the results meet one of the two below

o If below the 2.33-year channel flow mark and above 1 ppm in mercury

o If above the 2.33-year channel flow mark and above 20 ppm in mercury

Maintain/Restore Healthy Ecosystem Function

The Valley Habitat Plan includes all the instances of this theme. The policy states

that the main goal is to protect and maintain ecological (or natural) processes and that all

care should be taken to avoid irreparable damage to the habitat of endangered species.

Not only should ecosystems be protected but that there should be an improvement to the

quality of streams and hydrologic processes that support them to maintain a functional

aquatic community. To do this, the policy includes several necessary measures to protect

the ecosystem with two key themes, aquatic land mitigation and wetland avoidance or

minimization.

First, the Valley Habitat Plan requires that if a construction project decimates or

significantly impacts a wetland or aquatic land type, the implementing entity must

purchase mitigation land at a 2:1 ratio. If there is not enough land to meet the minimum

required purchase or for other substantial reason, the entity may buy into a mitigation

bank to fulfill this requirement. There are minimums listed on page 222 that must be met

to ensure protected ecosystems, they are:

 250 acres of riparian forests or scrublands

 40 acres of central California sycamore alluvial wetlands

 10 acres of coastal and valley freshwater marsh (perennial wetlands)

 5 acres of seasonal wetlands

 50 acres of ponds

 100 miles of streams

The use of land acquisition is to protect key high-quality habitats and to maintain or

enhance other critical habitats. Enhance, in this instance, relates to increasing vegetation

and biomass for greater wildlife use for movement, foraging, breeding and year-round

habitat use.

The second measure listed in the Valley Habitat Plan is wetland and pond

avoidance and minimization. This ensures that all projects will minimize direct or indirect

impacts on wetlands and ponds where direct refers to actions that disturb the wetland or

pond within the mapped boundary. If there are any direct impacts to a wetland or pond,

the project proponent is required to pay a wetland fee to cover the costs of restoration.

This fee can be avoided if the project avoids direct impacts. Projects should, therefore, be

designed to avoid or minimize impacts on wetlands and ponds to the maximum extent

practicable while reducing all downstream effects.

Maintain/Restore River Flow and Lake Levels

There was only one acknowledgment of restoring river flow and lake levels in the

policies. The Valley Habitat Plan recognized the impacts to habitats due to the

construction on waterways. To protect the ecosystems of endangered species, the Habitat

Plan requires that all in-stream projects must minimize impacts on riparian and aquatic

habitats and must be designed to curtail repercussions on stream morphology, aquatic

and riparian habitats, and flow conditions while minimizing impacts on covered species,

natural communities, and wildlife movement.

Summary

As was anticipated in the research questions, the overall percentage of

sustainability was lower in San Jose than in San Francisco, with a total of 52% to San

Francisco’s 90%. Overall, ten of the sustainability themes were not found in any of the

research documents and the Health and Safety Code was missing any sustainability

themes, whatsoever.

The non-existent themes are from each of the three pillars, social, economic, and

environmental. These include community participation, available data resources, and

equitable distribution from the social pillar. Themes not found in the economic pillar were

anticipate future need, coordinate surface and groundwater management and storage

systems, an institutional organization to prevent and solve water conflict, and find non-

traditional water sources. Finally restricting groundwater pumping, relaxed control of

waterways, and protect potential natural resources from the environmental pillar.

CHAPTER TEN:

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter is divided into two main sections. First, now that the codes and plans

for each city and state have been researched, it is necessary to consider the results in terms

of each of the sustainability pillars to determine if the themes are, indeed, standards of

sustainability as was originally posed in the research question. Second, the conceptual

framework itself will be evaluated using the information gathered during the city

document search. The final part of this chapter will establish a new framework based on

the research.

To reiterate the research questions posed at the beginning of this venture:

1. Establish if the sustainability themes suggested by scholars have been

implemented into water policy and if they are standards for sustainability.

2. Determine if the sustainable cities will have more of the framework themes than

the control or traditional cities.

Social Pillar: Theme Findings

Meets Basic Human Need

This theme requires that all water codes and plans recognize the water needs of the

citizenry. Overall, it states that each resident should have access to 50 to 100 liters of

water per day (Gleick, 1998). It was evident at the start of this research that the main cities

in the United States already have utilities and water suppliers to provide water to paying

residents. This is reinforced in each city’s policy as projected daily use is significantly

higher than 100 liters; Austin lists 200/GPCD with actual usage at 162/GPCD, Fort

Worth’s daily demand is 215/GPCD, San Jose’s projected daily use is 400 gallons per city

dwelling, and San Francisco’s city reservoir holds 413 million gallons which they equate

to a 5-day supply. Additionally, California documents assert that none of the state

requirements will stop any city from providing water to its constituents. One of the more

important results from this research is that while cities include these concepts of meeting

human need, only doing so through specific GPCD does not, by itself, confer

sustainability. It is the care and concern for all citizens, not just those who pay for utility

services.

Therefore, the main outcome of this theme is that almost every city includes rules

to limit water services interruptions, only San Francisco considers the water needs of

residents who do not or cannot pay for water resources. San Francisco enacted the Drink

Tap Ordinance which provides bottle filling stations in public areas to service residents

and tourists. I contend that this is a true indicator of sustainability as the water needs of

all citizens must be considered, not only the needs of those who can pay for the service.

Fort Worth includes something resembling this idea of water-for-all but continues to do

so in an economical fashion. Fort Worth requires that all businesses with five or more

employees provide clean drinking water for those employees during work hours.

All other instances of this theme relate to those individuals who can pay for utility

services. Fort Worth warns landlords that they cannot interrupt water services except for

required repair, construction, or emergency. Austin is broader requiring that all

development projects must avoid endangering the water supply system. San Jose ensures

that the city will work to supply water dependably and safely to the water customer, and

California requires that water companies properly and adequately furnish water. Properly

and adequately, in this case, is defined as meeting or exceeding the State Department of

Health requirements. While these are all good for those who can pay for services, this

does not address the needs of those who cannot.

Maintain Human Safety

Part of the requirements for this theme entails policies including planned steps in

case of water purification failure or water shortages. While there were instances of this

definition of the theme, upon completion of the research it appears that the concerns for

human safety are more about protecting people from water than planning for system

failure. This is not the definition suggested by the literature but it is important to note

that the protection from water is a reasonable addition to the overall definition of this

theme.

First, a look at the results from those instances that match the original definition.

Both states require that water must be provided to citizens during times of emergency,

California goes a step further by requiring each city to create an Emergency Response

Plan that describes exactly how water services are restored after an emergency and during

an emergency suppliers are required to distribute water without discrimination. San

Francisco embodies this requirement by demanding that the city meet water needs of the

community even under planned or emergency shutdown of facilities. California appears

to have more concern for the failure of water systems perhaps due to the constant threat

of earthquake activities, and more recently, drought. This matches what was stated in the

literature.

Second, consider the protection from water. Flood hazards appear to be a concern

in California State policy. So much so that the state requires considerable

state/county/city coordination to guarantee that severe weather and flooding problems

are handled quickly and efficiently. For example, the flood management program works

with individual cities to ensure that city land use decisions connect with flood program

decisions. Texas state does not have the same commitment to flood administration and

protection but both cities, Austin and Fort Worth, include floodplain management to

safeguard people and property from flood impacts. This does not appear to differentiate

between sustainable and control cities but still provides a glimpse into the city’s

consideration of human safety and may be different in regions without significant

flooding or drought.

Finally, throughout the research, it has become clear that in almost all cases the

human safety theme is paired with the human health theme. This is because policy

frequently refers to the ‘health and safety’ of the community. To simplify the matrix, it is

suggested that in the final iteration of the sustainability matrix, these two fields be merged

and include the flood management distinction.

Maintain Human Health

There are two noteworthy results from this theme. This is the first time where there

is a clear separation between the sustainable and traditional cities. Policies implemented

in the sustainable cities recognize the advantage of having water quality standards that fit

within the regional needs. Therefore, Austin has established Water Quality Zones that

enact more rigorous rules for development within the Barton Springs Area because the

water quality in that region is critical to the community’s health and well-being. As the

other sustainable city, San Francisco requires that watersheds be protected to ensure

high-quality water to safeguard human health. This is the only time where the health of

the ecosystem is directly paired with the health of the citizens who live in that region. The

recognition of the health of the ecosystem tying into the health of the citizen mirrors

Figure 2.1 as the three pillars of sustainability are central within the Venn diagram where

the goal is a balance between social, economic, and environmental needs.

Second, after analyzing the policies and determining that human safety and human

health should be combined, the two requirements for ‘maintaining human health’ must

be separated because the secondary definition for human health does not fit with the new

concept of maintaining human health and safety. Therefore, maintain human health and

safety would be described as “Planned steps in case of purification failure, water shortage,

or emergency and water quality standards specific to the region.” This means that the

second half of the human health theme would state that there needs to be “Standards for

separate uses - potable, non-potable, and ecological” and would become an independent

theme.

Reliable Service

Each city includes some mention of reliable service; however, it appears that this

is typically handled through water management. The policies tend to include vague

language that indicates the city government is concerned about the reliability of service

yet offer little to no specific requirements, as with other themes throughout the

framework. It is suggested that this theme be removed as it does not adequately answer

the research question. Instead, it should be applied to a future research project involving

the creation of a sustainable water management framework.

Government Participation

This theme states that there must be integrated decision making from all

appropriate staff and government agencies within the region. The results of the research

indicate three findings. First, decision making that incorporates city agencies is found

almost across the board, except in San Jose. However, Fort Worth was the only city that

involves any regional cooperation with an interlocal agreement when wastewater flows

downstream from one city to another. Austin shares its water conservation plan with the

Texas Region K Planning Group but does not request interlocal decision making. This is

contrary to the stated research hypothesis where the sustainable cities would meet more

of the framework than the control.

Second, there appears to be no separation between sustainable and traditional

cities when considering interagency cooperation. While every city incorporates some

aspect of agency communication in its water policies, San Jose only includes one

requirement. Additionally, San Francisco is limited when the city is compared to Austin

and Fort Worth. So, sustainable and traditional cities are counterparts on this issue –

almost all involving city-wide cooperation but not including regional participation.

Third, both California and Texas recognize the importance of cooperation when

framed as the state’s interaction with cities although they do not address it when framed

as city’s interaction with the region. Californian policies affirm that local agencies have

the authority to make water use and distribution decisions if they fall within the state’s

regulations. Texas policies compel state agencies to recognize the prerogatives of local

government as well as the sanctity of private property.

Community Participation

Mandating a need for wide-scale public participation in the policy process is found

in almost every city and state. San Jose is the only city that did not include this theme in

any of its water policy. There are two ways that cities appear to work with the community

to involve citizens in the policy process. First, Austin, Fort Worth, and San Francisco open

policy for public comment before enacting legislation. While this does create space for

citizen input, governments can take this a step further by requesting resident input before

writing the policy. Austin has done this with a pollution study where the local community

was part of the survey process, but the city does not recurrently use citizen input before

creating policy.

Second, Austin, San Francisco, and San Jose show the various government

understanding of the importance of community knowledge and all include requirements

for education and outreach within the city to increase citizen participation in policy-

making and water conservation. Topics typically include water conservation efforts in the

home and the garden, the ways to collect and reuse water, and the benefits of xeriscaping.

So, while sustainable and traditional cities do embrace the community participation

theme, there is room for improvement both for sustainable and control cities.

Available Data Resources

When the public has access to current data, citizen input becomes more useful to

sustainable water policy development. It also becomes more democratic. Only Austin

recognizes the importance of an informed citizenry and suggests improved data quality

collection and overall availability. Fort Worth and San Francisco include stipulations that

certain information is freely available up to a certain point and for a fee after that.

This does not appear to be a theme that separates sustainable cities from the

traditional ones. All research cities include the need for data availability but do not stress

the need for unrestricted access. Sustainable cities must focus on this section. Indeed,

there should be much more emphasis on all of the themes within the ‘Democratic Water

Decisions’ subsection.

Equitable Distribution

This theme ensures that water use is not allocated disproportionately and still

allows for basic needs to be met. Austin is the only city, sustainable or traditional, to

completely satisfy this theme by requiring a five-tier water rate structure where rates are

divided for single family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, wholesale, and

large-volume industrial. While Fort Worth and San Francisco included concepts that

work toward equitable distribution they do not completely reach the target set. There is

room for improvement for sustainable cities to ensure that water is readily accessible to

all citizens.

During the California State interview, the California Water Resources

Sustainability Coordinator shared that, for the state to become more sustainable it must

consider adapting the current water rights system to meet the changing needs of the state.

The Coordinator also suggested that agricultural water rights may not be the most viable

use of California’s limited water sources, especially considering the recent drought

impacts and the overall economic standing of agriculture in California.

Socially Just

This theme requires that water codes and plans ensure that water is available to all

individuals and does not put any undue stress on any individual citizen or group. There

appears to be three separate approaches to meeting this theme. In all, each city and state

includes some understanding of socially just pricing except for the state of California

which appears to leave that responsibility of sustainability to the city governments. First,

Texas State asserts that water rates must be just and reasonable where they are not

unreasonably preferential, prejudicial, or discriminatory. Austin policy asserts that

pricing should be fair, consistent, and cost-effective. While both aspire to lofty goals none

of these words, ‘unreasonably,’ ‘fair,’ or ‘consistent,’ are defined or given a value that fits

within the policy framework. This allows for considerable leeway in application.

The second approach to this theme involves exemption from permit fees,

application fees, installment charges, or water deposits for those who prove an undue

hardship or low income. These waivers are found in Austin, Fort Worth, and San Jose.

This is an effective way to ensure that those individuals and businesses with less capital

still have access to utility services. However, the waivers are counter-acted in Fort Worth

as there are fees and charges associated with various water services but hardship cases

can only waive the water deposit with no changes to the other numerous charges.

The third approach involves a tiered water rate system. San Francisco has a two-

tiered wastewater system with a five-year rate increase to encourage conservation,

whereas, Fort Worth’s sewage and drainage fees are on a four-tiered system based on

income. In both cases, the tiered system is only for wastewater and drainage, not potable

water supply. So, while it does give all individuals with homes or businesses access to

wastewater services it does not address water access. This means that, while there are

three approaches to meeting the requirements of the socially just theme, there are still

some aspects that should be tackled to increase overall sustainability of the water codes

in both sustainable and control cities.

Economic Pillar: Theme Findings

Conservation

Conservation is an accepted and more traditional part of sustainability. Because it

is a well-known component of sustainability, every research city and state includes several

requirements related to the conservation and reduced use of water. It appears that

because many people across a broad spectrum equate sustainability with conservation,

this becomes the ‘front-line’ of sustainability. Indeed, during the key informant interview

in San Jose, when asked about how sustainability relates to the water in that city the

answer revolved around the importance of water conservation not only as a sustainability

issue but also as a state-wide economic issue and a matter of human rights because of the

California drought. The key informant’s response did not go on to cover other aspects of

sustainability but was only focused on conservation concepts. It is evident, then, that this

is not a theme that will be absent in current water policy whether the city is considered

traditional or sustainable.

Reuse

This theme requires that cities involve the reuse of water in agricultural, industrial,

commercial, and residential settings where applicable and appropriate. In practice, this

is frequently established through rainwater capture and greywater reuse. Each city

includes concepts of water reuse in its policies, while California and Texas both value the

importance of rainwater harvest and capture as is evident from policy requirements.

Interestingly, the concept of recycled water is not as evident in policy. It appears that the

policy suggests reusing water in landscaping but leaves it to the management arena to

apply that requirement through recycled water systems.

In each policy water reuse is combined with the concepts of conservation because

policy makers appear to consider water reuse as one way to avoid using potable water all-

together, thus conserving potable water for human use. With this in mind, the final

framework must merge the conservation and reuse themes into one. This way the matrix

can decrease the probable confusion associated with dividing policy statements between

the two themes when they are frequently used in conjunction.

Anticipate Future Needs

While it is important for cities to conserve and reuse water, it also essential that

the city government recognize that water is a limited resource and that the long-term

viability of the current system is crucial to continuing to meet water needs. Only the

sustainable cities include any conception of long-term water strategies. San Francisco is

looking for and investing in new water sources like desalination, transferred water, or

groundwater while Austin purchased future water rights through the Lower Colorado

River Authority. What is most interesting is that there is such an emphasis placed on

conservation and reuse throughout city policy but not on anticipating the future water

needs of its citizenry. This, then, is a theme that clearly shows the difference between the

water policies of sustainable and traditional cities.

Coordinate Surface and Groundwater Management

It is important for overall water sustainability that government officials coordinate

surface and groundwater management because as water moves through the entire system

that water can be, at one point or another, surface or groundwater. Only the sustainable

cities include any mention of coordinating management, although these are very broad

with no well-defined requirements or rules. California state links local management of

groundwater with the management of surface water through integrated water

management. However, this management system has not yet made its way into city policy.

Indeed, there is considerable room for the development of this theme within policy.

Institutional Organization to Prevent and Solve Water Conflict

None of the cities or states includes any mention of or requirements for an

organization to prevent and solve water conflict. Not only does this show a lack of

forethought in water planning and policy creation but it is surprising considering that

both states have been through significant droughts and have many different users of

potable water which can and will eventually lead to conflict. Texas has already seen the

beginning of, what the New York Times is calling, ‘water wars’ (Parker, 2015).

The lack of any organization for water conflict is a clear example of a traditional,

reactionary approach to water management. Reactionary policy is adapted or created to

address current problems facing the water system. The creation of these organizations

within the cities would show a progressive, sustainable step towards preparing for future

water needs.

Find and Use Non-Traditional Water Sources

Only San Francisco incorporates concepts related to the finding, management and

use of water sources to reduce pressure on traditional water supplies. Even in San

Francisco water policy connects these concepts only to the use of recycled water in the

place of potable water. Clearly, there is room for improvement, and it is an essential step

for a genuinely sustainable water system. If cities are unable to adapt current water

systems to include non-traditional sources, their systems will be strained and will be

unable to function sustainably in the long-term.

Environmental Pillar: Theme Findings

Restricted Groundwater Pumping

This theme aims to show that city governments understand the influence of

groundwater pumping on aquifer storage and water reliability. The theme also includes

policy that begins or continues to reduce drawdown. Remarkably, California state policy

asserts that groundwater managers should increase local recharge to reduce groundwater

depletion and resource resilience. However, San Francisco is currently working on

increasing use of groundwater supply. This is because city policy maintains that

groundwater should be used when economic and environmentally possible, which

appears to be counterintuitive to the state suggestion. The only other instance of

groundwater pumping is in Fort Worth where it is prohibited to use groundwater as

potable water in any municipal setting. This meets the requirements of the theme, but it

is unclear if this policy is in place to prevent overdrawing the aquifer or if it is because of

water quality of that aquifer.

Relaxed Control of Waterways

As with other themes in the “Reduce Human Impact” subsection, this theme was

underrepresented within the research cities. Austin is the only city with intentions to

reduce human impact on waterways within its policies. Austin policy establishes that any

modification to the floodplain should be done in a way to preserve natural or traditional

characteristics of the land and waterways to encourage the stability and integrity of the

floodplain. Clearly, the intent is to ensure public safety during flooding situations, but

when floodplains are allowed to remain in their natural state it also benefits the local

ecology.

Reduced Pollutant Impact

Reducing pollutant impacts is another common sustainability theme. Because

maintaining water quality is essential when considering the long-term viability of water

systems, reducing water pollutants is a vital component for sustainable water use. Since

it is so readily associated with sustainability, this theme was found, in abundance, in all

cities and both states.

Each city understands that it is fundamental to preserve clean drinking water.

Austin also links reducing pollutant impacts to preventing the devastation of aquatic

habitats and promoting public health and safety. Additionally, each city includes

requirements for the prevention of erosion or increased sedimentation of waterways,

showing that cities appreciate that pollution takes many forms and that it is not just the

addition of chemicals. In all, reducing pollution is a common sustainability theme and is

found as per the definition throughout the policies of both traditional and sustainable

cities.

Maintain or Restore Ecosystem Function

Being that sustainability involves environmental protection, maintaining or

restoring the local aquatic or riparian ecosystem’s function should be a vital part of any

sustainable water policy. Each city includes some iteration of this theme. However, in

most cases, the local government called for it as a way to protect human health and safety

through maintenance or restoration of the ecosystem, not necessarily for the good of the

ecosystem.

Austin, Fort Worth, and San Francisco all include provisions that manage natural

resources to protect ecosystems and maintain public health. Austin clearly states that this

is to reduce the adverse impacts to drinking water, recreational resources, and aquatic

life. In this theme, there is very little to differentiate traditional and sustainable cities

except that San Jose clearly indicates that maintaining ecosystem function is essential to

avoid irreparable damage to the habitats of endangered species. This is different from its

counterparts as this traditional city shows more sustainability in understanding the

importance of protecting the ecosystem because they are important not only because it

protects public health.

Protect Potential Natural Resources

This theme emphasizes the value of natural resources and works to protect current

and potential water resources. Only the water policies in the sustainable cities contains

this theme. However, Austin’s adaptation can be considered a better long-term solution.

Austin requires that all development adjacent to the Colorado River must list all drainage

within 150 feet of the river. This ensures that the city can protect the future water purchase

that Austin already has in place. Additionally, the local government includes several

requirements to protect the water quality around aquifer recharge zones. San Francisco,

on the other hand, is currently looking into the potential for the future use of groundwater

as drinking water. Clearly, while the sustainable cities appear to be thinking long-term,

more can still be achieved in the protection of potential natural resources.

Maintain or Restore River Flow and Lake Levels

The final theme represents policy that understands that aquatic ecosystems need

a minimum amount of water to meet its basic needs. None of the cities included this

thought exactly, but some regulations achieve the same outcome for different reasons.

San Jose policy is the closest to the theme definition with the regulation stating that all

instream projects must be designed to avoid any repercussions to stream morphology,

aquatic and riparian habitats, or flow conditions, although ‘repercussions’ is not defined.

Austin and Fort Worth both include concepts of floodplain safety where the modification

of a floodplain should only be done when necessary for human health or safety. In these

cases, the outcome ensures that water bodies will still have access to recharge.

Side-by-Side City Comparisons

Looking at the themes individually gives only one side of the results. Additional

analysis is achieved by comparing the overall city results. The following tables (10.1 –

10.3) compile the total frequency of each theme by city, using the final tally of all codes in

each city.

Table 10.1. Social Pillar City Comparisons

Theme

Austin

Fort

Worth

San

Francisco

San Jose

Quality of Life

Meets Basic Human Need

Maintains Human Safety

Maintains Human Health

Reliable Service

Democratic Water Decisions

Government Participation

Community Participation

Available Data Resources

Pricing

Equitable Distribution

Socially Just

By using this approach to city analysis, there are some differences between

sustainable and control cities. Specifically, in the ‘Maintains Human Health’ theme. With

this theme the sustainable cities required additional water quality standards that go above

the national and state requirements by focusing on regional needs. Additionally, this

shows that only San Jose was missing themes from this pillar.

Table 10.2. Economic Pillar City Comparisons

Theme

Austin

Fort

Worth

San

Francisco

San Jose

Scarcity of Resources

Conservation

Reuse

Anticipate Future Need

Government Approach

Coordinate Surface/Ground Water

Management

Organization for Water Conflict

Find/Use Non-Traditional Water

Resources

The economic pillar city comparison reveals more stark differences between the

sustainable and control cities – specifically where the themes were found in sustainable

cities but not in the control. Austin and San Francisco are dedicated to anticipating the

future needs of residents through additional acre-feet from the Lower Colorado River Pact

or desalination, respectively. This research does not contend that either of these options

are the most sustainable only that the cities are looking at future needs and trying to find

ways to satisfy the future community. In the same way, the sustainable cities attempt

coordination between surface and groundwater management while the control cities do

not have this concept within their policies. Finally, both Fort Worth and San Jose are

missing the same four themes from the economic pillar.

Table 10.3. Environmental Pillar City Comparisons

Theme

Austin

Fort

Worth

San

Francisco

San Jose

Reduce Human Impact

Restrict Groundwater Pumping

Relax Control of Waterways

Reduce Pollutant Impact

Ecosystem Function

Restore/Maintain Healthy

Ecosystem Function

Protect Potential Natural

Resources

Restore/Maintain River Flow &

Lake Levels

Again, we see the disparity between sustainable and control cities, where only

sustainable cities included concepts of relaxing control of waterways and protecting

potential natural resources. It is also interesting to see the contrast between Austin and

the other cities with concerns about ecosystem function. Austin’s policy includes codes

for this theme more than four times as frequently as other cities.

Sustainable Water Policy: A Revised Framework

Based on the results of the research in the four cities, there are three main divisions

within these themes. However, it is not the three traditional pillars - social, economic, and

environmental - as was presented at the beginning of this research (See Chapter 3, Tables

3.8-3.10). It is more suitable to separate them into ‘common’, ‘uncommon’, and ‘rare’

sustainability, shown as a pyramid in Figure 10.1. The pyramid functions in this approach

because the policies have far more common themes than uncommon and rare. This is not

to say that each city met every aspect of each theme or that they are beacons of

sustainability for other cities, but rather that the policies include these concepts. This final

framework based on the outcomes of the research, showing the relationship between

policy and different aspects of sustainability.

First, some facets of sustainability are more prevalent in water policy than others.

These common themes are characterized by what is typically understood by people as

sustainability and have easily identifiable results. The outcome of the research shows that

every city, both sustainable and traditional, includes seven of the themes; conservation

and reuse, maintain human health and safety, meets basic human need, reduced pollutant

impact, restores and maintains healthy ecosystem function, and socially just pricing.

Thus, these become the common sustainability themes and lay the groundwork for more

complex policy initiatives.

Rare

•

Anticipate Future Needs

•

Coordinate Surface and Groundwater

Management

•

Find and Use Non-traditional Water Sources

•

Organization to Prevent/Solve Water Conflict

•

Protect Potential Natural Resources

•

Relaxed Control of Waterways

•

Restrict Groundwater Pumping

•

Standards for Separate Water Uses

Uncommon

•

Available Data Resources

•

Community Participation

•

Equitable Distribution

•

Government Participation

•

Maintain and Restore River Flows

and Lake Levels

Common

•

Conservation and Reuse

•

Maintain Human Health

and Safety

•

Meets Basic Human

Need

•

Reduce Pollutant Impact

•

Maintain and Restore

Healthy Ecosystem

Functions

•

Socially Just Pricing

Figure 10.1 Sustainable Water Policy Framework - Themes Pyramid

Table 10.4. Sustainable Water Policy Framework – Common Themes

COMMON SUSTAINABILITY THEMES

Metric

Description & Examples

Conservation

and Reuse

Requirements for reduced water use

or the reuse of water in agriculture,

industry, business, and residential

setting where applicable and

appropriate in all types of water use.

Examples: reduced use,

conservation, water use

management, reuse,

repurpose, greywater,

rainwater

Maintain

Human

Health and

Safety

Planned steps in case of purification

failure, water shortage, or flooding.

Also, includes any additional water

quality standards above national

regulations.

Examples: failure plan,

secondary water source,

backup, emergency supply,

flood, flood protection

Maintain or

Restore

Healthy

Ecosystem

Function

Words that show plans to restore or

maintain human-impacted ecosystems

in the local area. Includes restoration

programs, springs management plans,

or reduced human impact on nature

activity locations.

Examples: preserve,

wetland protection, riparian

protection, restoration plan,

reduced social/human

activity

Meet Basic

Human Needs

50 to 100 liters (13 to 26 gallons) of

water, per person, per day. Listed by

WHO as ‘sufficient’ water for basic

need. Gleick (1998) suggests a

minimum of 50 liters (13 gallons) per

person per day.

Examples: basic need,

access, water rights

Reduced

Pollutant

Impact

Language that ensures that water

systems are not significantly impacted

by additional materials in the water

system

Examples: discharge,

pollutant, runoff, fertilizer,

damage

Socially Just

Pricing

Water systems are available to

individuals in all economic standings,

and the system does not put undue

stress on any individual citizen

Examples: equitable,

apportionment, priority use,

distribution, waive fee,

deposit installment plan

Next, uncommon sustainability themes involve the next step of sustainable

practices. These are aspects of sustainability that are not as frequently recognized as the

common themes but are still more often acknowledged than the rare themes. Overall,

uncommon themes were found in three out of the four cities and, interestingly, most of

them cover the concepts of people and government relationships – both regarding

citizen’s relationship with government as well as interagency cooperation. Thus, the

uncommon section includes the following themes; available data resources, community

participation, equitable distribution, government participation, and maintain or restore

river flow and lake levels.

Table 10.5. Sustainable Water Policy Framework - Uncommon Themes

UNCOMMON SUSTAINABILITY THEMES

Metric

Description & Examples

Available Data

Resources

Data resources are required to be

accessible to the public promptly.

Water systems can only be

democratic if there is

unrestricted access to

available data.

Examples: database,

research request, data

collection, data request

Community

Participation

Language that mandates wide-scale

public participation throughout the

surrounding areas and community.

Examples: public meeting,

open discussion, hearing

Equitable

Distribution

Wording that suggests that water for

domestic, urban, industrial, or

agricultural use is not

disproportionately allocated and still

allows for basic needs to be met.

Examples: equitable,

apportionment, priority use,

distribution

Government

Participation

Verbiage that denotes integrated

decision making from all pertinent

staff and government agencies within

the region.

Sustainable policy should

include requirements for a

coordinated approach

among all agencies.

Examples: inter-

government, inter-agency

cooperation.

Maintain or

Restore River

Flow and Lake

Levels

Understanding that water bodies need

a minimum amount of water to meet

basic needs of the ecosystem. Gleick

(1998) states that there is little

agreement about exactly how much

water is required for an ecosystem but

that decisions must still be made to

respect ecosystem need.

Examples: minimum flow

requirements, adaptive

modeling, seasonal

fluctuation, water

availability

Table 10.6. Sustainable Water Policy Framework - Rare Themes

RARE SUSTAINABILITY THEMES

Metric

Description & Examples

Anticipate Future

Need

Words that reflect government

understanding of water as a limited

resource and the long-term viability of

the water system.

Examples: future water

resources, additional water

supply

Coordinate Surface

and Groundwater

Management

Words that show government attempts

to enhance coordinate of ground and

surface water systems

Examples: holistic, coordinated

management, coordinated use,

combined yield

Find or Use Non-

Traditional Water

Sources

Words that relate to the finding,

management, and use of water sources

that reduce pressure on traditional

supply

Examples: source evaluation,

source feasibility, technology

advancement, non-traditional

water

Organization to

Prevent or Solve

Water Conflict

Plan or action items to create a

government agency to prevent or

resolve water conflict

Examples: treaty management,

oversight, committee, conflict

resolution

Protect Potential

Natural Resources

Language that shows an understanding

of the value of natural resources and

works to protect current and

prospective resources

Examples: resource

management, species

protection, resource

vulnerability

Relaxed Control of

Waterways

Terminology that begins or continues

the process or removing, reducing use,

or minimizing human impacts on

waterways

Examples: dredging, dam,

reclamation, sedimentation,

canal

Restricted

Groundwater

Pumping

Language that shows both an

understanding of the influence of

groundwater pumping on aquifer

storage and water security. It begins or

continues to reduce drawdown of

groundwater

Examples: reduced

groundwater use, permit,

permit evaluation,

groundwater, recharge,

drawdown

Standards for

Separate Water Use

Standards for separate uses including

potable, non-potable, and ecological

water use.

This should develop lower

water quality criteria for

industrial, commercial, or

landscaping purposes as well as

the criteria for ecological use.

Examples: water standards,

ecological water use, industrial

water

Finally, the rare themes reflect those aspects of sustainability that were not as

frequently considered, or front-and-center, sustainability. These are themes that are

generally forward thinking or long-term solutions to problems that may not yet exist.

Today water policies are predominately reactionary – focusing on command and control

solutions where new resolutions are not enacted until the problem becomes significant

enough to warrant policy intervention. Therefore, the rare sustainability themes were

only found in one or two of the cities, with one of them, the organization to prevent or

solve water conflict, not found in any policy throughout the research. Overall, the rare

themes include; anticipate future needs, coordinate surface and groundwater

management, find and use non-traditional water sources, an organization to prevent or

solve water conflict, protect potential natural resources, relaxed control of waterways,

restricted groundwater pumping, and standards for separate water use.

This new framework of themes works for policy makers as it gives a clear indication

of where policy is successful and what would be needed to take it to the next level. Next

steps also become more evident for policy makers without a sustainability background by

breaking the pillars down into common, uncommon, and rare instead of social, economic,

and environmental. The final framework is listed in Tables 10.1-10.3, starting on page 181.

This framework is usable by both researchers and policy makers, and it can be employed

to determine or incorporate sustainability in water policy. It is important to note that the

given examples are not a definitive list of words or phrases for which to search or use, but

rather a starting point to better understand what to include during the policy making

process.

Key Informant Interview Results

This research also included key informant interviews from each of the cities and

states studied. After requesting interviews with all individuals, only three responded –

California, Austin, and San Jose. While not a large enough sample size to garner any

meaningful data, the discussions did open some interesting lines of inquiry that can be

further developed.

When asked “On a scale of 1-10 (1 being the least and 10 the most) do you feel your

city is sustainable when considering water and water policy? What steps do you think you

need to take to reach a 10?” The sustainable city, Austin, and what could be considered

the more environmentally conscious and sustainable state, California, both discussed

their shortcomings – giving themselves a sustainability rating of eight and seven

respectively. Austin’s water policy representative went on to discuss the importance of

implementing a full Integrated Water Management Plan for the next 100 years of water

supply (which is currently in the works), and California discussed the need to rethink

water rights and agriculture during this significant drought. Both of these are indicators

of the city or state looking at incorporating uncommon or rare themes into the future of

the water system.

San Jose, on the other hand, said they were an eight or a nine because the Mayor

has emphasized the importance of water conservation and has directed staff to treat it as

a priority. To get to a ten they suggest needing to increase landscape conversions, use of

greywater and stormwater capture, and increase conservation. All of these, outside of

stormwater capture, are common themes. San Jose’s policy makers and influencers

appear not to be considering the bigger picture and, thus, working to include more

uncommon and rare themes.

While these responses are not indicative of attitudes in all ‘traditional’ cities; it is

an interesting development that needs further study specifically due to the high marks

given by the traditional city. The response from San Jose’s representative was not

expected based on the research results. San Jose’s key informant rated the city’s water

sustainability as an eight or nine, however the analysis of their policy, based on this

research framework, suggests that they are at 52%, a five on the 1 – 10 scale.

CHAPTER ELEVEN:

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It is easy to get bogged down in the thousands of pages of water policy and lose

sight of the importance of this research. Most of the literature up to this point looks at

water management and sustainability with less attention paid to the government’s actual

written words. This research is the first step in filling that gap in the literature. The final

product of this work suggests that a better way to think about what constitutes sustainable

water policy is to take the themes from the literature and divide them into common,

uncommon, and rare aspects. The pyramid model (Figure 10.1) can now be used as a

framework to study water policy throughout the United States and functions as the next

step to Gleick’s 1998 path to sustainability and Feldman’s 2010 concepts of water policy

for sustainability. Furthermore, continued research can ensure that the framework is

sound for policy makers and sustainability coordinators to use when creating or adapting

water policy.

Research Questions Answered

Two questions were outlined at the beginning of this research. First, establish if

the sustainability themes suggested by scholars have been implemented into water policy

and if they are standards for sustainability. Second, determine if the sustainable cities will

have more of the framework themes than the control or traditional cities. Now that the

study is completed, it is fundamental to look back and determine the overall results.

First, the research sought to establish if the sustainability themes suggested by

scholars have been implemented into water policy and if they are today’s standards for

sustainability. All but one of the themes are in water policy in one of the four cities with

the only one missing that being a governmental organization to prevent or solve water

conflict. So, the first half of this research question has been answered as they are for the

most part, in policy today.

The second half of the question asks if they are standards for sustainability. The

seven common themes are found in the research cities, both sustainable and traditional,

which may indicate that these themes would not necessarily indicate a city’s overall

sustainability. However, I contend that the research demonstrates that these are a vital

part of the sustainability framework because they form the base of sound sustainable

water policy. Knowing that common sustainability themes are the starting point, the

uncommon and rare themes are the next steps for cities to take to become more

sustainable. As noted by Solow (1991) sustainability is specific to each individual region,

by using the pyramid framework, sustainability coordinators and policy-makers can

develop policy that works for their city or region. It would behoove cities to introduce

more of the rare themes within their water policies, as it would mean moving from

reactionary policies that address problems after the fact to proactive policies that seek to

address issues before they arise. Additionally, the pyramidal approach addresses the

concerns posed by Searle (2007) and Kua (2013) when considering the need for policy

makers to accommodate the three pillars of sustainability as that tends to cause turmoil

during the policy-making process. The pyramid avoids the confusion and provides a

straightforward approach to including sustainability in policy.

The second research question stated that sustainable cities will have an abundance

of sustainability themes while the traditional cities will have less of these themes within

their water policy. The results demonstrate that this line of thinking is a false equivalency

as the various water policies are not equal. While it is true that there are similar

components – each city having a building code for example – the number of codes in each

of these policies is not indicative of sustainability. This is because the water policies, while

covering similar topics, have different writing styles, approaches, and divisions. For

instance, Austin’s policy typically included sustainable themes, like pollutant reduction,

throughout the entire document while Fort Worth has only one section dedicated to that

theme. This increases the number of codes for Austin but does not necessarily suggest

increased sustainability.

When considering the overall percentage of sustainability, the results can be

compared, side by side. San Francisco has the highest overall rating with a 90%, Austin

received an 86%, Fort Worth a 71%, San Jose received the lowest score of a 52%. When

measured in this way, the sustainable cities clearly have more of the themes than the

control cities.

Limitations of the Research

There are three main issues that should be addressed. First, and most importantly,

the final sustainability framework must be tested in other cities throughout the country

to ensure the validity of these findings. The analysis of the policy for four cities and two

states is not sufficient to guarantee that the model is accurate for all cities and all states.

Even the choices of cities and states represent their own specific limitations as there could

be a more sustainable small city that did not make the lists used. Second, there is a

potential for human error in policy evaluation of this kind. While Atlas.ti was used to

search for the suggested keywords and the policy was then further analyzed by hand, it is

possible that some aspects of sustainability were missed. A potential long-term solution

for this would be a completely automated system where the policy was inserted into a

program that evaluated it. This would remove human error but would open the door for

technological error. Third, only three city managers responded to the key informant

interviews leaving a large margin of error. This research should be continued.

Recommendations for Research Cities

Based on the results, there are steps that the research cities should take to better

incorporate sustainability in water policy.

 Make water policy more proactive by including more rare themes, and include

additional intergovernmental participation within water policy by including more

uncommon themes. While most cities will include some aspects of common

sustainability, by making the step up to uncommon and rare themes there is a

better chance for the city to incorporate long-term sustainability which increases

the viability of the water system as a whole.

 Incorporate additional sustainability education for policy makers and water board

members to explain the importance of uncommon and rare themes. If the

individuals who make the rules are knowledgeable in the importance of well-

rounded sustainability within the system, those individuals will be more likely to

incorporate upper-level sustainability themes.

Recommendations for Future Research

 Use the final sustainability framework as the basis of study for other city water

policy. I want to continue the research in other cities – both large and small, in

large and small states to confirm that this pyramid is the most appropriate

delineation of the sustainability themes.

 Determine if any city in the country includes an organization to prevent or solve

water conflict – has this city had conflict making it reactionary or are they being

proactive? If this is not found at the city level, is it possible that this aspect of

sustainability is implemented at the regional level?

 Increase the scope to international policy to establish if the framework functions

outside of the United States. It will be interesting to apply the framework to a more

social-leaning nation, like the Netherlands, to determine if the themes are applied

in the same manner as those in the United States.

 Continue interviews of water board and sustainability board members to follow up

on policy-maker’s sustainability education level. This could play a vital role to the

application of the framework and may prove to be an effective additional measure

of the overall sustainability of water policy in a city.

 All of these are themes of sustainability but is any one of them more important to

overall sustainability than others? Is there a keystone that is essential?

 Finally, after fully understanding the policy behind sustainable water systems, the

next step is to look as see how those policy requirements are enacted and how they

function within the system as a whole.

Students also viewed