Public Participation in Los Angeles Water Resources Management

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Introduction

The pursuit of more water to serve a growing population and economy has been a

crucial factor in California history, affecting Los Angeles in particular (Green, 2007;

Hanak et al., 2011). Until recently, this history has not been about involving the people in

decision-making processes about water-resources planning and management that affect

their quality of life (City of Los Angeles Integrated Resources Plan [IRP], 2006; Council

for Watershed Health, 2015). As a result, a qualitative case study design capable of

capturing and interpreting the enormous complexity inherent in this issue was required

and chosen for the present study.

California’s water crisis remains the outcome of a flawed code of practice and

inadequate planning that have left citizen stakeholders out of the decision-making process

and state elected officials struggling to resolve water problems (Brown, 2008; Hanak et

al., 2011). California’s current water policy is fragmented and inconsistent, and it lacks

transparency and clear authority (Brown, 2008; Pincetl et al., 2016) due to limited public

participation and other factors. These factors include changes in the value ascribed by

society to ecosystems, growing urbanization, declining state and federal financial and

technical support, a shifting climate, and outdated water management systems (Hanak et

al., 2011).

In the Los Angeles metropolitan region, nearly 100 public and private entities are

formally involved in the management and distribution of potable water, a legacy rooted in

fragmented urban growth in the area and late 19th-century convictions about local control

of services (Pincetl et al., 2016). An analysis of how Los Angeles’s various water supply

infrastructures came to be illustrated how historical circumstances and often-conflicting

strategic paradigms to secure water resources have complicated the ability to achieve

sustainable water solutions (Cousins & Newell, 2014). According to Pincetl et al. (2016),

in Los Angeles,

• Past water abundance resulted in a complex but less than resilient water

system, with water users accustomed to cheap, easily accessible water.

• The water management institutional architecture, or the arrangement of water

management institutions, has significantly inhibited the system’s adaptability

to change and engage people.

• Water management agencies’ response to drought and climate change has

remained underexplored and, as a result, has failed to inform potential public

policy changes and engagement.

These factors established an unreliable water supply, water scarcity, and increased flood

risk as aspects of life in California (Brown, 2008; Hanak et al., 2011) and limited public

participation. According to Lauer et al. (2018), public participation is important for

improving social-ecological systems management, and lack of public engagement leads

to unintended outcomes.

The current struggles over California’s water are extensive and reveal the state’s

diverse landscape, climate, economies, ecosystems, and cultures. According to Brown

(2008), the need for a change in California water management has been acknowledged by

researchers, practitioners, and elected leaders who are familiar with the old model; still,

the necessary tools and paths forward are not always well understood or adequately

resourced. In the Los Angeles region, ecological, social, and economic life and activities

depend on importing approximately 87% of the region’s water supply from outside the

region (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power [LADWP], 2013). Because water

knows no boundary, a regional approach is essential to exploring Los Angeles’s water

resources planning and infrastructure development policy. As a result, in this study, “Los

Angeles” refers not only to the City of Los Angeles, though that is central, but also to

most of the Los Angeles County area that is south of the San Gabriel Mountains,

including the Los Angeles River and San Gabriel River watersheds, as well as the costal

watersheds from Palos Verdes to the Santa Monica Mountains that drain to the Pacific

Ocean (Green, 2007).

In the early 1980s and 1990s, Los Angeles’s clean water facilities planning efforts:

• focused on developing a cost-effective infrastructure that did not always

adequately address public participation and project impacts on communities

and their surrounding environment;

• were met with public criticism and community protests; and

• did not always consider the relationship among independent water service

functions of wastewater, drinking water, and stormwater in a comprehensive

regional watershed approach but continued to produce single-purpose plans

(City of Los Angeles IRP, 2006).

In about 1999, after a civil lawsuit, settlement agreement, consent decree, and a ceaseand-

desist order, Los Angeles City Hall launched its integrated resources planning process

that is today known as the “One Water” Los Angeles Program to involve the public in the

planning process (City of Los Angeles, 2015).

A favorable social change implication of this study is a potential increase in public

awareness of the role that public participation can play in water resources planning and

public policy decision-making processes. The research could be used as a vehicle for

spreading awareness that people can and ought to participate in water resources planning.

Getting involved may not be something to shy away from and may not be relegated to

some privileged few when decisions on the availability of reliable, high-quality water

supply and related infrastructure affect a community or region’s quality of life. At the

same time, the research could be a vehicle for highlighting the limitations and trade-offs

of public participation, as not everyone can participate at the same level.

Background

A review of the literature indicates that Los Angeles area water agencies did not

share information or communicate effectively with each other and with the public,

particularly in the 1980s (Council for Watershed Health, 2015). Current studies suggest

that water agency staff perspectives may be hindering public participation, much as they

have hindered innovation (Kiparsky et al., 2016). Citizen stakeholder involvement and

public participation in the form of policy coalitions can provide a means for

understanding how several actors—public officials, private actors, and the community—

can work together toward sustainable governance and making sustainable public policies

(Clavier & O’Neill, 2017). Participating citizen stakeholders in the community’s water

resources planning decision-making processes and policy coalitions may ally with public

or private actors to defend or support a particular project or vision (Clavier & O’Neill,

2017).

Though public participation reached its pinnacle during the environmental

movement and resulted in the enactment of federal and state water-related laws as well as

recognition of the environment as a stakeholder in water resources planning and

administration, it did not solve the Los Angeles water scarcity problem (Hanak et al.,

2011; Peden, 2016). Major regions such as Los Angeles and San Francisco continue to

lack sufficient and reliable water supply, leading scholars and analysts to ask whether

public participation has lost its luster and no longer plays an essential role in bringing

about positive changes to water resources planning in these urban areas. An analysis of

how Los Angeles’s various water supply infrastructures illustrates how historical

circumstances and often-conflicting strategic paradigms to secure water resources have

complicated the ability to achieve a sustainable solution (Cousins & Newell, 2014).

In California, water is considered the most precious public resource, and the

government is uniquely charged under the state constitution to manage water as a scarce

resource (Los Angeles Times Editorial Board, 2016; Orr et al., 2012). Water is not like

petroleum, a resource that is valuable but optional for individual use. As unthinkable as it

has become in Los Angeles to go without a car, an individual does not have to drive or

use petroleum. In contrast, water is more like air, an indispensable resource for human

life, health, and safety (Los Angeles Times Editorial Board, 2016; Orr et al., 2012).

Water is the State’s most precious resource, and creating a more resilient, self-reliant Los

Angeles means increasing the amount of water that Los Angeles obtains from local

sources (Garcetti, 2015).

Regarding sustainability and livability, life exists where there is water (Ball,

2005), and this is particularly true in Los Angeles, where water is so vital that it must be

imported from regions outside Los Angeles to support ecological, social, and economic

life (Green, 2007; LADWP, 2013). Managing these all-important water resources and

achieving the desired sufficiency, reliability, sustainability, resilience, and livability

require a practical, holistic, and integrated approach in which public engagement and

participation play an important role. Public engagement is important for improving

social-ecological systems management outcomes (Lauer et al., 2018). Los Angeles and

the rest of California need to plan to avoid catastrophic water supply scarcity. In this

study, I explored the role of public participation in avoiding catastrophic water shortages,

which may help in achieving community sustainability and livability.

Problem Statement

A social problem that Los Angeles is facing is achieving a reliable, clean, and

abundant or sustainable water supply. More specifically, the problems that I explored in

the present research were (a) public participation or the lack of it in Los Angeles’s efforts

to address this social problem and (b) the outcomes of limited public participation over the

last few of decades in Los Angeles’s water resources management and decision-making

processes.

The following shows how public participation and engagement in Los Angeles

water resources management have been relevant and significant. In the 1900s, Los

Angeles officials disguised themselves as federal Bureau of Water Reclamation officials

and purchased lands and water rights in the Owens Valley, setting off a long dispute when

Owens Valley and Mono Lake residents became aware of the deception (LADWP, 2013).

Ensuing court and Water Board involvement in the 1980s, as well as negotiations that

began in 2011 as a series of facilitated meetings involving the Mono Lake Committee,

LADWP, California Department of Fish & Wildlife, and California Trout, culminating in

the parties’ signing of a settlement agreement in August 2013, would change Los

Angeles’s ability to provide reliable water supply, continuing to influence it to this day

(Hanak et al., 2011; LADWP, 2013; McQuilkin, 2016; Peden, 2016).

The problem of the need to engage the people in Los Angeles and California water

resources management remains current, relevant, and significant for the following

reasons: First, in 2013, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) recognized

48 Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) planning areas—10 less than the 58

counties in the state—whose participants collaborate to manage their water resources

more efficiently, making IRWM a major part of the California Water Plan and an

important roadmap of California’s and Los Angeles’s water future (Feldman, 2017).

Second, hastening the IRWM for Los Angeles was the resolution of the long conflict

between Los Angeles and Owens Valley (Inyo and Mono Counties) that resulted in the

restoration of 62 miles of the lower Owens River and the exportation of less water to Los

Angeles (Feldman, 2017). Finally, of great significance and relevance is that

collaboration has resulted between Los Angeles (LADWP), the California Department of

Fish and Game, and two environmental groups (California Trout and Mono Lake

Committee), which entails far greater cooperation among these actors than previously

(Feldman, 2017; McQuilkin, 2011). The Los Angeles corporation with Owens Valley

groups emanated from the adversarial clash of interests, not from an amicable

partnership, and was forced upon Los Angeles by the following:

• the intervention of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),

which forced the resolution of the long Los Angeles conflict with Owens

Valley groups, and

• Los Angeles’s violation of the Clean Air Act (not the Clean Water Act), which

forced Los Angeles to collaborate with state agencies, local Owens

Valley officials, and interveners (Feldman, 2017).

Additionally, the relevance of public participation in Los Angeles water resources

management is evident in the current effort to “reinvent” the Los Angeles River. For

example, in 2016, at public urging, the federal government and the City of Los Angeles

government pledged $1 billion to remake into its natural course portions of the 51 miles

of the Los Angeles River that were concretized due to several deaths that resulted from a

heavy rainstorm and flooding event in 1938. In all of these water management decisions

by policymakers at the federal, state, and local Los Angeles levels of government, the

problem that has remained is how much public participation is involved and how much

difference in outcomes would be made with more, if not robust, public participation, and

this was the reason and basis for the central question of the present study.

There are government research programs, academic studies, and scholarly and

news articles on water resources planning levels in Los Angeles. However, there has been

minimal research on the role of public participation in the Los Angeles water resources

management and decision-making processes. This meaningful gap in the current research

literature was addressed in the present study using a qualitative case study approach.

According to Lauer et al. (2018), public engagement is important for improving outcomes

of social-ecological systems management, and lack of public engagement leads to

unintended outcomes.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore and understand the

importance, effectiveness, and outcomes of public participation in Los Angeles water

resources management, including infrastructure planning and decision-making processes.

The purpose of exploring, evaluating, and understanding participatory programs is to

assess whether the objectives are being achieved and to identify how the programs can be

improved, such as by enhancing resource management and involving individuals and

groups in a democratic way (Carr et al., 2012). The Los Angeles water resources planning

process is designed to achieve a sustainable Los Angeles that is less dependent on

imported water supply, with early and continuous public participation as a core principle.

Therefore, the aim of the present research was to explore how public participation

influences water resources and infrastructure planning. This research highlighted the

importance of public participation in Los Angeles water resources management efforts.

The central concept of this research was public participation in Los Angeles water

resources management, which was studied using advocacy coalition framework (ACF)

theory, focusing on understanding the following:

• the economic, social, and environmental factors that shape public participation

in water resources planning in Los Angeles, and

• the perceptions, motivations, structure, resources, and skills that

citizenstakeholders and their coalitions need to remain engaged and active in

the water resources decision-making process in Los Angeles.

Advocacy research provides a voice for participants by raising their consciousness

or advancing an agenda for positive change to improve their lives and become a united

voice for reform and change (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). There is scant literature on the

best way to create policy in a manner that involves considering the people’s voice

(Fitzgerald et al., 2016). A review of the scant literature available portrays public

participation as a key component in policy decision making. Nevertheless, the

decisionmaking process is often driven by other stakeholders such as experts, institutions,

and governing bodies, to mention but a few (Fitzgerald et al., 2016). The question is this:

To what extent does public participation in decision making make a difference in shaping

policy for water resources management in Los Angeles? In this study, the specific

positive social change issues of informing and empowering participants were addressed,

while requiring the research to proceed collaboratively to not further marginalize the

participants due to the inquiry. In this regard, the participants could help to design

questions, collect data, and analyze information, and they could reap the research

rewards.

It is important to understand the role of public participation in shaping regional

water resources planning and infrastructure development policies and programs for Los

Angeles. As a result, a possible positive social change implication of this study is a

potential increase in public awareness of the role that public participation can play in

water resources planning and public policy decision-making processes. This study could

be used as a vehicle for spreading that awareness and letting people know that they can

and ought to participate, but not without the following two considerations. First, getting

involved may not be something to shy or stay away from, such that it is relegated to some

privileged few, when decisions on the availability of reliable, high-quality water supply

and related infrastructures affect quality of life for the community or region. Second,

there may be limitations and trade-offs of public participation, as not everyone can

participate at the same level.

The participants for this qualitative research were a select number of Los Angeles

residents, stakeholders, water resources managers, and policymakers. Participation was

limited to those who lived or did business in Los Angeles. Only citizens who were 18

years of age at the time of the study participated. Participation was anonymous, and all

data will remain confidential. The participants were those who willingly volunteered to

participate in a research interview. The selected research site was the Los Angeles Civic

Center area, centrally located for the ease and convenience of the participants, most of

whom were usually in the civic center area and attended water resource planning events

or activities.

This study contributes to the public policy and administration profession because

the belief that citizens should be given a voice in their governance by including them in

the deliberative process appeals to the democratic ideals identified globally as a unique

aspect of the United States, especially actively engaging citizens in the decision-making

process (Callahan, 2007). The present study explored public participation in the Los

Angeles water resources management and decision-making process and determined the

participants’ perceptions, the processes’ success over time, and opportunities for

enhancing outcomes. The goal was to increase public awareness and affect the

fundamental institutional changes of Los Angeles water resources agencies toward

participatory water resources management capable of solving the Los Angeles problems

of unreliable water supply and over-dependence on imported water supply. Additionally,

by expanding the understanding of science and policy analysis in the water resources

policy process, the present research may contribute to public policy and administration.

The potential for positive social change of the present research is expected to include

increased public awareness of the roles and importance of public participation in water

resources management and decision-making processes, especially when long-term water

supply sufficiency is vital in Los Angeles.

Research Question

The research question was the following: What are the roles, importance,

effectiveness, and outcomes of public participation in Los Angeles water resources

management? To understand this question and answer it effectively, one needs to

understand, as a point of reference, the institutional planning practices being implemented

by water resources managers in Los Angeles to achieve a sustainable longterm water

supply that is reliable and resilient to climate change and drought conditions. The primary

program of interest is the City of Los Angeles’s One Water Program, which was led by

the City’s Bureau of Sanitation and Environment (LASAN), in collaboration with the

LADWP, and other 100+ individuals and stakeholder groups. The LA One Water Program

is preceded by the City of Los Angeles’s IRP program, which with the election of Mayor

Eric Garcetti became the City of Los Angeles One Water Program until 2018/2019, when

the One Water Program ended with the departure of the One Water Program “champion”

to another City Bureau.

Other significant programs, events, and institutional practices of Los Angeles

water resources managers and stakeholders of interest are as follows:

• the community involvement efforts that were initiated before the City’s One

Water Program and IRP, which were led by Dorothy Green and the coalitions

that she was instrumental in forming, such as the Los Angeles and San Gabriel

Rivers Watershed Council, which later became the Los Angeles Council for

Watershed Health (Green, 2007);

• parallel efforts to the city’s IRP programs, which include the Metropolitan

Water District’s (MWD) IRP and adaptive management planning and the

Greater Los Angeles Region’s (GLAR) Integrated Regional Water

Management (IRWM) program; and

• the various new programs and initiatives, including the mayor’s Green New

Deal, which has a goal of achieving 100% of recycling water and sourcing

50% of the Los Angeles water supply from local sources by 2035 (Mayor Eric

Garcetti, 2018), and the recent voter passage of Los Angeles County-wide

Measure “W” for funding stormwater capturing and reusing stormwater

runoff, to name but a few.

In all of these programs, particularly the city’s IRP/One Water Program and the

IRWM, what was the role of the public, working collaboratively with water resources

managers and policymakers, including the courts, to achieve a sustainable, reliable, and

resilient water supply for Los Angeles City and GLAR? How effective had public

participation been in Los Angeles water resources planning and decision-making

processes within the past 30 years, from the early 1990s to the present? What were the

perceptions of progress toward achieving a reliable water supply from the stakeholders

and actors—individuals, groups or coalitions, water resources managers, and

policymakers elected or appointed?

Theoretical Framework

The concept that grounded the present research was ACF theory. During the

literature review on public participation in water resources planning. I found that ACF

theory concepts were suitable for governing the understanding of the central phenomenon

of the present research, which was public participation in Los Angeles water resources

planning and management. ACF theory originates from the work of Sabatier (1991) in

collaboration with Jenkins-Smith (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Weible et al., 2011).

ACF theory indicates that government agencies’ involvement and collaboration need to

combine independent citizen and interest‐group involvement in the community with the

strengths of structured planning, decision making, and performance measurement by the

government (Swain & Hollar, 2003). ACF theory posits that to create public trust and

ownership, the government must coordinate a negotiated public service (Swain & Hollar,

2003). It incorporates the logic of constitutional choice that views public agencies as

responsible for not merely performing services directed by someone at the top. According

to the theory, public agencies are also responsible for serving as the means for allocating

decision-making capabilities to provide public services and goods that are responsive to

individuals in different social situations (Sabatier & Weible, 2014). An underlying

concept of ACF theory is that an engaged and informed public is considered vital to any

effort to achieve lasting innovations in urban water settings worldwide (Kiparsky et al.,

2016).

ACF theory provided a suitable framework for exploring public participation in

water resources planning in Los Angeles, the present research’s central phenomenon. For

instance, using ACF theory, public participation can be understood to relate to what

motivates stakeholder groups to form, sustain, and influence water resources planning for

Los Angeles while working through existing institutional arrangements to change the

institutions and result in a positive social change.

The basic concept of social and environmental responsibility is that institutions

and businesses are not to cause harm to stakeholders purposefully or knowingly.

Moreover, they must focus on performing responsibly toward the community and the

environment (Chan, 2013; Krutz et al., 2019.). Ihlen (2008) added that organizations need

to know and conform to what the public and the stakeholders consider socially and

environmentally responsible activities.

Nature of the Study

Merriam and Tisdell, (2015) defined the qualitative case study design that I

selected for the present research. The rationale for this selection was that the qualitative

study design was suitable for understanding the practical consequences and useful

applications of what could be learned about the fundamental concept and phenomenon

being investigated, which was public participation in water resources management

(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Ravitch & Carl, 2015). Moreover, the qualitative study design

was used to answer straightforward questions without framing the inquiry within an

explicit theoretical, philosophical, epistemological, or ontological tradition (Kahlke,

2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). This design was used to find new and unique ways of

drawing from the toolkits of one or more established methodologies to build something

new (Ravitch & Carl, 2015). A qualitative design is appropriate when the exploration

experience sought is not an intense one, which might otherwise suggest multiple

interviews in a phenomenological frame (Kahlke, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015;

Ravitch & Carl, 2015). Some scholars have expressed concern regarding “method

slurring” or methodological mixology that may occur when someone is not using one of

the established philosophical traditions, such as phenomenology or grounded theory

(Kahlke, 2014).

Participant Population, Recruitment, and Sampling Processes

The population for this qualitative case study consisted of people or groups of

people who were knowledgeable about, participated in, managed, and made decisions

regarding Los Angeles water resources planning and management. The research method

involved individual semistructured interviews of single participants or members of a

particular group of participants such as water resources managers and state and local

policymakers. I used convenience sampling to ensure that key individuals and groups

were included in the interviews. The criteria on which participant selection consists of

those individual stakeholders or groups, water resources managers, and policymakers

who participate or are knowledgeable about the Los Angeles water resources planning

and management. Based on Rubin and Rubin (2012), the number of individual

participants or cases for this qualitative study was 10. The rationale for using 10

participants was that this number would meet the consensus average participant size for a

qualitative study in public policy and administration. My goal was to seek saturation, so I

anticipated a minimum of 10 participants.

The sampling process included providing no incentives to participants other than

the motivation to help Los Angeles residents understand how they participated. The role,

need, and benefit of public participation in their water resources planning decisions affect

their quality of life. I made the participant selection decisions. My participant recruitment

approach was informal, voluntary, and casual. I gave potential participants a written

description of the study that included the study’s primary objectives and how the data to

be collected would be used. All recruited participants were required to give written and

informed consent. Data were collected and analyzed for themes and patterns. The key aim

of this study was to explore the role and effectiveness of public participation based on

ACF theory.

Definitions

The following terms have been defined for this qualitative study:

Collaborative decision making: Los Angeles’s water resources planning process

involving the people and community in the decision-making process for water quality,

resources, stormwater, clean water, and related infrastructure. It is designed to increase

sustainable water management for Los Angeles by making programs and policies to

manage water in a more integrated and collaborative manner (One Water LA Program,

2017).

Collaborative decision-making bias: Bias, in this sense, refers to a firm

conviction—or a priori belief—that the precise value of community-level planning is

readily justified on its own merits. It is the underlying conviction that community

participation is not only valuable, but also required (Cortner & Moote, 1994). It is the

belief that the impact of community planning upon water resource planning in Los

Angeles must be both direct and positive. This bias constitutes a direct threat to the

overall validity of the study.

Institutional arrangements: Consist of those processes through which structures,

such as schemas, rules, norms, and routines, become established as authoritative social

behavior guidelines (Ali, 2005; Ali-Hassan, 2005).

Public participation: As used in the present study, this term evokes and implies

the deliberative democratic process whereby public and grassroots nongovernmental

organizations (NGOs) and citizen stakeholders participate with water agencies and policy

makers in making sustainable water resources management decisions for Los Angeles,

which affects their quality of life.

Stakeholder management: Defined as “managerial actions taken, or behaviors

demonstrated in response to the group or individual stakeholders” (Freeman, 2010, p. 48).

The concept of stakeholder theory was introduced in 1963; however, it was in 1984 that

Freeman (2010) developed the concept of stakeholder management in the form of an

approach about individuals or groups who can impact organizations” (Stieb, 2009).

Assumptions

While conducting the literature review, I came across the following assumptions

relevant and critical to the meaningfulness of the present study because they clarify

aspects of the study that are believed but cannot be demonstrated to be true. The

assumptions are in the categories of honesty, historical, administrative, and

environmental.

Honesty and Historical Assumptions

The honesty assumption was that participants were honest and completed the

interview to the best of their ability. Another assumption was that the sample population

was sufficient to cover the greater population. The historical assumption was that early

efforts and projects to control and distribute water in Los Angeles and California were

undertaken with little or no thought to stakeholder involvement, the environment, and

local economic consequences (Peden, 2016).

Administrative Assumptions

The administrative assumptions were concerned with the actions of the California

Court system. The assumption was that California Court decisions first viewed

groundwater and surface water as integrated resources and thus contributed to redefining

regional integrated water resources planning and management. The court’s new definition

of integrated water resources management was central and essential to the present sturdy

because it reflects consideration of the following: (a) the economic growth and prosperity

needs of largely populated cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco that import water

for their growth; (b) the ecological needs of sparsely populated regions such as Owens

Valley that export their water; and (c) the equitable rights of all concerned (Peden, 2016).

The court decisions imply that those responsible for integrated regional water resources

management must holistically consider the economic, ecological, and social equity (i.e.,

the “three Es of sustainability”) of the regions involved (World

Commission on Environment and Development, 1987).

Environmental Assumptions

The environmental assumptions were related to drought-induced water shortages.

The assumption was that the State of California, recognizing the need to manage the

state’s water resources sustainably, was facilitated by the 5 consecutive years of drought

from 2012 to 2016. The years of drought created a water supply shortage in California

(Serrano, 2011). The understanding of the assumption was that the drought increased the

attention and will power of California Governor Brown and state legislators to act,

ultimately facilitating the state’s enactment of a Sustainable Groundwater Management

Plan for the first time, in 2014 (Peden, 2016; Serrano, 2011). The cycles of drought and

flooding in California have fundamentally shaped how water is managed and prompted

Governor Brown to declare a drought emergency in January 2014, institute conservation

measures, and mandate urban areas to cut water use by 25% by April 2015 (Dallman,

2017).

An environmental assumption, at the local Los Angeles level, was that the

consecutive years of drought and the need to reduce dependence on imported water

supply facilitated the City of Los Angeles’s undertaking of its second phase of integrated

water resources planning, now called the “One Water LA Program,” which made public

participation a cornerstone of the effort. The One Water LA Program integrated planning

for all water service functions of drinking water, wastewater, stormwater, watershed

management, water conservation, water reuse, and water recycling into a regional water

resource planning effort (One Water LA Program, 2015).

Scope and Delimitations

The specific focus chosen for the present research was public participation in Los

Angeles water resources management. Public participation and its effectiveness in

influencing effective positive changes in Los Angeles water resources management

received limited attention in the current literature review. As a qualitative study, this

comprehensive analysis focused on water resource management in Los Angeles.

Emphasis was afforded to the role of community engagement by Los Angeles

stakeholders, including individual residents and businesses or their groups, advocacy

coalitions, nonprofit organizations, and other relevant stakeholders. Emphasis was also

afforded to the stakeholders’ interactions with the officials of water resources institutions

that they were trying to influence, including water resources managers, administrators,

and policy makers. Together, the stakeholders and the officials of the water resources

institutions or agencies constituted the population included in the present study, and

together they defined the boundaries of the present study. The study population included

the community stakeholders and water resources managers, administrations, and policy

makers but did not include the consumers and other agencies that did not support the

water resources management.

The theoretical framework most related to this study was ACF theory. It deals

with stakeholders’ or actors’ and advocacy coalitions’ involvement, interaction, and

collaboration with water resources managers in water resources management

decisionmaking processes.

This study has the potential for transferability because it is conceivable that the

learning advancements facilitated by this study are generalizable to other contexts. Los

Angeles was purposively selected as the geographic focus of this study. This was due to

many deeply rooted water scarcity and water importation similarities that it shares with

other densely populated areas of California and the West Coast of the United States.

Many of these same communities are in a continual quest for the freshwater supplies

required to facilitate growth and expansion. The collaborative and integrated efforts of

Los Angeles water resources participants and managers to address and reduce

overdependence on imported water supplies and improve locally sourced water supply

might help other regions of California whose residents also suffer from limited water

resources and water supply.

Limitations

One of the limitations of the present research that related to design and

methodological weaknesses, including issues related to limitations of transferability and

dependability, was an almost exclusive focus on importing water from Owens Valley in

the Sierra Nevada area of California. Importing water from the other two main sources of

imported water for Los Angeles—the California Bay Delta and the Colorado River

Basin—were not focused on, but merely mentioned in the study, as a general research

strategy employed to minimize resource constraints. It is unlikely that this focus impacted

the study results negatively. In part, I focused on the Owens Valley because this area

served as the primary source of water for the Los Angeles region, as it had for over a

century. As a result, Owens Valley provided the case that was most representative of the

water importation process and community stakeholder group involvement, or lack

thereof, related to Los Angeles. Consequently, this potential limitation was unlikely to

hurt the dependability of the present study’s outcomes.

It is almost certain that there are regions of the world where the present study’s

research findings cannot be generalized. For instance, a large metropolitan community

that is unable to import water from an external source would be less likely to benefit from

the present research. The inability to generalize findings of this research on a universal

basis does not detract from its importance.

The biases that may have influenced the present study’s outcomes included the

following:

• Los Angeles water resources managers’ biases and institutional barriers,

including managers’ ability and willingness to engage in and sustain

participative collaboration with community stakeholders and advocacy

groups;

• interviewees’ potential political bias against the water resources management

policy directions of policy makers; and

• interviewees’ potentially limited water resources experience and

selfpromotion, which might have limited interviewees’ responses and skewed

study responses.

The interview questions were designed to avoid these biases. Additionally, I did not

include political questions in order to address these limitations.

Significance

The significance of this study lies in identifying potential contributions that

advance knowledge in the discipline. The discipline of public policy and administration

owes its foundation to public participation in the 18th century with President Thomas

Jefferson (1743–1826) and was strengthened in the 19th century by President Woodrow

Wilson (1856–1924), who was known as the father of public administration, and who

also believed in the then-progressive movement’s notion of returning power to ordinary

people via initiatives and recall elections (Burke, 2001; Krutz et al., 2019). Public

participation, in the context of this study, evokes and implies a deliberative democratic

process whereby the public and grassroots NGOs and citizen stakeholders participate in

making sustainable water resources management decisions for Los Angeles that affect

their quality of life. Knowledge may be advanced in the public policy and administration

discipline by grounding the present research in the discipline’s history and traditions.

The present study focused on public participation in civic and democratic debates

over issues involving water resource management in Los Angeles that impacted people’s

quality of life. By focusing on public participation and highlighting the importance of

people being able to contribute meaningfully to the decision-making processes in their

community, this study may advance practice and policy. Another potential contribution of

the study is toward increased awareness regarding participative, integrated, and adaptive

water management programs and policies in Los Angeles, which may lead to positive

social change. The contributors who advance knowledge in this discipline are the

individual stakeholders, stakeholder groups, advocacy coalitions, nonprofit organizations,

water resources managers, administrators, and policy makers in Los Angeles.

This study may expand understanding in a manner leading to social change by

enhancing public awareness of public participation and exploring how public

participation in water resources planning could be a catalyst for social change in Los

Angeles. In the context of Los Angeles resource management, this study may support the

achievement of an enhanced ability to develop and sustain effective collaboration

between the public, community activists, and municipal leadership, which could serve as

a model in the literature for public policy and municipal administration.

This study may shed light on the grassroots ability of the people to pick up from

where the Los Angeles water agencies stopped addressing—or became unable to

adequately address—local and regional water resources needs in a participative,

collaborative, and inclusive partnership manner. For example, consider the formation of

the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council emulated by other

communities. During the 1990s, water agencies in the Los Angeles region did not share

information among themselves or the public (Council for Watershed Health, 2015).

Therefore, in 1996, the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council, a citizen-

stakeholder coalition that is now known as the Council for Watershed Health, was formed

to figure out the best way to improve communications so that a comprehensive watershed

management planning work could start (Council for Watershed Health, 2015). In another

example of social change resulting from public participation in Los Angeles’s water

resources planning, the early and continuous involvement of community leaders, citizen-

stakeholder coalitions, agencies, and the private sector led to the formation of the

cornerstone of the City of Los Angeles’s integrated planning for its wastewater program,

also called the One Water LA Program. The early and continuous involvement of the

public in Los Angeles Integrated Resources Planning was in part responsible for (a)

winning the USEPA’s water quality award; (b) winning other awards; and (c) earning

public support and approval of a $500 million Proposition “0” for implementing

sustainable stormwater quality improvement projects in Los Angeles (City of Los

Angeles Integrated Plan for the Wastewater Program, 2001; One Water LA Program,

2018).

Summary

In Chapter 1, I presented an overview of the study, stating the problem that was

addressed and why this study was important. This chapter’s main points included the

purpose statement, in which I sought to explain that qualitative research was the process

by which the research question was answered (Simon, 2011). The research question

reflected the nature of the study, which was conducted using a qualitative research

approach. Because the research topic is of particular interest to researcher practitioners, it

is expected to contribute to the profession’s advancement (Brause, 1999).

In Chapter 1, I introduced the research and presented the relevant background

information, the problem statement, and the key objectives. Also, I provided the research

question that served as the focus of the research as a whole, and a brief description of

gaps in the literature that demonstrated why the research was needed. Details of the

literature review are provided in Chapter 2.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Through this qualitative study, I aimed to explore and understand the role of the

public in participating and collaborating with Los Angeles water resources agencies and

policymakers to find a lasting, reliable solution for Los Angeles’s limited water resources

that would render the area less dependent on imported water supply from other regions.

There is scant literature on the best way to create policy while considering the people's

voice (Fitzgerald et al., 2016). A review of the scant literature available portrays public

participation as a key component in policy decision making. Nevertheless, the

decisionmaking process is often driven not by the people, but by other stakeholders such

as experts, institutions, and governing bodies (Fitzgerald et al., 2016). The question, then,

is to what extent public participation in public debate issues and decision-making

processes such as those of Los Angeles water resources management makes a difference

in shaping public water infrastructure projects and policy outcomes.

A concise synopsis of the current literature that established the problem's

relevance includes a summary of public engagement, water resources, and watershed

planning from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA, 2006). The synopsis

also includes recent case studies on how ACF theory guided this research on water,

climate change, and environmental policy issues (Pierce et al., 2016; Weible & Sabatier,

as cited in Fischer et al., 2006).

Past researchers have sought to evaluate sustainability related to water resource

planning and infrastructure development; however, successfully implementing such

innovations remains an understudied topic in the research literature (Kiparsky et al.,

2016). In part, this is because the successful adoption of such innovations relies heavily

upon an informed public's formal cooperation and assistance (Kiparsky et al., 2016). In

Los Angeles, participatory, collaborative, sustainable, integrated, and adaptive water

resources regional planning and decision-making processes are emerging and

transitioning phenomena (Antos, 2016). The emerging and transitioning conditions also

account for the limited research work in the literature on Los Angeles water resources

management efforts. Particularly, there is a gap in the relevant literature as no known

studies have analyzed public participation in Los Angeles water resources management

based on ACF theory, concepts, and principles, as I sought to do in this research. This gap

in the literature represented a critical objective of the present research.

The limited public participation literature in this area includes sources associated

with the emerging and transitioning state required IRWM programs in Los Angeles and

other parts of California. Mandated by the 2002 Regional Water Management Planning

Act (SB 1672) through the California State DWR, the IRWM Programs are intended to

(a) be participative and collaborative efforts for identifying and implementing water

management solutions on a regional scale; and (b) integrate, implement, and adapt water

management solutions for the regions (Pincetl et al., 2016). The presence of significant

gaps in the literature is interpreted as suggesting a field relatively open to discoveries.

The absence of research suggests a potentially significant opportunity to contribute to the

development of the literature on this topic, establishing the problem’s relevance to the

present study.

In this chapter, I stated my literature search strategy, thoroughly addressed the

current research on public participation in Los Angeles water resources management, and

discussed the theoretical framework, explaining why the ACF theory best supported the

direction of this qualitative case study.

Literature Search Strategy

My strategy for conducting a comprehensive literature search involved using a

wide range of library databases, search engines, articles, books, and websites. I used

research databases from universities and other higher learning institutions, especially the

Walden University Library, including EBSCOhost, Thoreau, Business Source Complete,

and ABI/INFORM Complete (Walden University Library, 2018). I also acquired literature

from the City of Los Angeles and Google Scholar.

To determine key search terms and combinations of search terms, I examined

keywords from relevant peer-reviewed articles. Keywords identified in this manner

included public participation, citizen stakeholder, civic engagement, water resource

planning, California water crises, water management in Los Angeles and California,

environmental policy development, community involvement, consensus processes,

collaborative management, and stakeholders.

I followed an iterative search process to ensure the inclusion and consideration of

relevant studies, terms, and databases to identify germane scholarship. I incorporated key

themes, findings, and conceptual elements relevant to the current study whenever

possible. The iterative search process also included breaking down the present research

according to its basic components. As an illustration, the literature review was broadened

to focus on the general topic of public participation instead of public participation in the

relatively unique context of water resources management in Los Angeles. In this way, the

present study may significantly benefit other researchers’ efforts in this area. During the

iterative search process, the following key terms, keywords, and topics were used,

primarily in the Walden University and Google Scholar databases: public participation,

civic and/or community engagement, regional water planning, water resource planning,

natural resource scarcities, collaborative decision making, citizen stakeholder process,

and integrated water resources management. Additionally, the iterative search process

included evaluating terms in the specific context of the Los Angeles water resources

management region, focusing on ACF theory, which formed the foundation of the present

study. At this stage of the iterative search process, the key terms used in the Walden

Library and Google Scholar databases included water, water resources planning, regional

planning, water supply, water shortage, integrated water planning, citizen participation

in water planning, community engagement, watershed management, Los Angeles water

planning, Los Angeles drought, Los Angeles water conservation, water importation,

water recycling and reclamation efforts in Los Angeles, One Water LA program, Los

Angeles Integrated water planning, integrated water resources management, water

resiliency planning, and sustainable and dependable water for Los

Angeles.

In the final stage of this comprehensive iterative literature review, specific

emphasis was afforded to suggestions by colleagues, professors, and subject matter

experts whose interests overlapped with the focus of the present research. Further,

research materials provided or recommended at professional meetings, seminars, classes,

and conferences were evaluated, as in cases in which there was little current research and

few, if any, dissertations.

Theoretical Foundation

The ACF theory provided the theoretical foundation for the present study because

its concepts grounded the research. While reviewing the literature on individual or group

participation in water resources planning and management, I found that ACF theory

concepts were suitable for governing the exploration of this study. For instance, ACF

theory indicates that public participation can relate to what motivates stakeholder groups

to form, sustain, and influence water resources planning while working through existing

institutional arrangements to change institutions positively. Moreover, advocacy and

participatory worldview research can be transformative by leading to positive action

agendas for reforming and changing participants’ lives, institutions, communities in

which individuals work or live, and the researcher’s life (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

The ACF theory originated in the work of Sabatier (1991) in collaboration with

Jenkins-Smith (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Weible et al., 2011). The original ACF

theory was developed to respond to the need for a longer term understanding of policy

changes and intergovernmental relations, as well as the need for a more realistic model of

the individual rooted in psychology than in microeconomics (Weible et al., 2011). This

enabled the understanding of the present research question in terms of the historical and

cultural contexts under which the ACF theory was developed and modified (Sabatier &

Weible, 2014; Shafritz et al., 2016).

According to Sabatier and Weible (2014), the historical context of ACF theory is

rooted in several seminal works, which together constitute the major theoretical

propositions of ACF theory:

• Pressman and Wildasky (1973) and Majone (1980) highlighted the importance

of causal theory and belief theory in public policy.

• Heclo (1974, 1978) addressed policy-oriented learning, integration of systems,

and actor-based systems.

• Meltsner (1976) and Mazur (1981) illustrated the critical role of a scientific

and technical data analyst in political debates.

• Hjern et al, (1978) and Hjern and Porter (1981) offered a bottom-up approach.

• Simon (1957, 1985) provided a model of the individual based on the limited

capacity to process information and the tendency to distort interpretations

based on presuppositions.

These aspects of the propositions of ACF theory lay the criteria for (a) exploring

and evaluating the roles and effectiveness of public participation in Los Angeles water

resources management, (b) answering the central question of the present research, and (c)

ensuring appropriate application of the theory. In this regard, the ACF theoretical

framework evaluation criteria included advocacy coalition interaction, learning, capacity

building, policy change, and actors sharing their beliefs and coordinating actions to

influence public policy. I sought to determine how the ACF theoretical evaluation criteria

applied to Los Angeles water resources management and decision-making processes.

How Advocacy Coalition Framework Theory Has Been Applied Previously in Ways

Similar to the Current Study

ACF theory’s concepts of advocacy coalition and democracy in community

institutions have been extended by recent and seminal work in public policy and

administration. Examples include the works of Putnam (1993), Berry et al. (1993), and

Musso and Weare (2017) on civic engagement, democracy, and ways of spurring greater

citizen participation to develop a deeper sense of community, stronger trust in

government officials, and greater confidence in the decision-making system. Other

seminal works that contributed to the extension of ACF theoretical concepts suggest the

following:

• The health of a democratic society depends on the quality of involvement of

its private citizens.

• Increasing collaboration helps people to (a) understand information better, (b)

become empowered to solve problems with new ideas, (c) generate greater

consensus, and (d) generate a voice in government that leads to long-term

support for public policy recommendations (Bekkers, 2004; Brody et al.,

2003; Buckwalter et al.,1993; Fiskaa, 2005; Irvin & Stansbury, 2004; Kathi &

Cooper, 2005; Kunde,1994).

Further, Bingham, et al, (2005) proposed new governance that retains legitimacy

by involving people in a process by which they participate in their government’s work or

risk the government losing legitimacy. Lack of active participation by the people in

government decision-making processes deprives officials of valuable input and

compromises government legitimacy (Walters et al., 2000). Together, the ACF and the

modern seminal works that extended it formed an appropriate foundational framework for

this qualitative research.

Regarding the rationale and how ACF theory relates to the present study, ACF

theory and this research shared key concepts related to encouraging advocacy coalition

formation, encouraging policy learning and changes, and using scientific research and

data analysis to drive policy decisions. The ACF theory concepts of advocacy coalition

interaction, learning, policy changes, and actors sharing their beliefs and coordinating

actions to influence public policy are evident and applicable to public participation in Los

Angeles’s integrated regional water resources planning process. For instance, the Los

Angeles coalition formation actors began conversations to form a coalition that later

became an effective grassroots citizen stakeholder watershed council for influencing

water policies in Los Angeles, in response to Los Angeles water resources agencies that

would not share information among themselves or with the public (Council for

Watershed Health, 2015; Green, 2007).

The ACF’s policy-oriented emphasis on refining individuals’ belief systems and

collectives to influence policy changes is also applicable to the Los Angeles experience.

For example, from the late 1990s through the mid-2000s, over 500 individual and

stakeholder groups collaborated with water resources agencies as part of the Los Angeles

Integrated Resources Program (IRP) to effectively stop duplicative planning processes for

yielding single-purpose plans for each water service functions and replacing them with a

holistic, collaborative approach that saved taxpayers costs and won the USEPA Water

award (City of Los Angeles, 2006). These effective applications of ACF theoretical

concepts to public participation in Los Angeles water resources management provided the

rationale for choosing ACF theory as an appropriate foundational framework for this

qualitative research, particularly related to addressing the key objective of the research

question.

Studies Related to the Constructs of Interest and Chosen Methodology

Other studies that related to the construct of interest, which consists of public

participation as governed by ACF theory, and the chosen participation evaluation methods

that are consistent with the study’s scope; are found in key documents. These key

documents include the European Water Framework Directive and the U.S. Clean Water

Act, which require public and stakeholder participation in water resources management

and form the basis for three methods of evaluating public participation (Carr et al., 2012).

The three methods of exploring and evaluating public participation in water resources

management are presented in Table 1 and consist of the following:

• process evaluation of the quality of the participation process to determine if

the process is legitimate and promotes equal power between participants;

• intermediary outcome evaluation that assesses the achievement of nontangible

outcomes of trust and communication, as well as assessing short-to-

mediumterm tangible outcomes such as agreements and institutional change;

and

• resource management outcome evaluation that assesses the achievement of

resource management changes, such as water quality improvements (Carr et

al., 2012).

Table 1

Three Methods of Evaluation and Their Criteria

Process evaluation

Intermediary outcome

evaluation

Resource management

outcome evaluation

Accountability

Development of social

capital: interaction and

network development and

trust

Ecological improvement

Cost effectiveness

Products from the process:

agreements, end to a

stalemate, innovation,

institutional change, shared

knowledge, and information

Economic improvement

Deadlines and

milestones

Human health and

wellbeing improvement

Facilitation

Implementation of an

accepted plan

Knowledge inclusion

Legitimacy

Power

Reduction in

conflict/increased harmony

Note. Adapted from an actual table originally printed in Carr et al. (2012).

These three methods were combined with ACF theory criteria in evaluating the

Los Angeles water resources and adaptive management approaches. Although process

evaluation consists of the primary component of the existing literature, it may not

necessarily indicate whether a participation program enhances water resources planning

and management. Resource management outcome evaluation is challenging because

resource changes often emerge beyond the typical period covered by an evaluation and

because changes cannot always entirely be related to participation activities. Intermediary

outcome evaluation has been given less attention than process evaluation. However,

intermediary outcome evaluation can identify (a) some real achievements and (b) side

benefits that emerge through participation. As a result, the intermediary outcome

evaluation should play a more important role in evaluating water resources management

participation (Carr et al., 2012). Intermediary outcome evaluation was recommended for

this research study.

Literature Review History of Civic Engagement Advocacy and Democracy: Origin

of Public

Participation and Public Administration

To promote clarity and ease of understanding in the review and synthesis of

studies related to the key concepts under investigation in the present research and produce

a description of what is known or controversial and what remains to be studied, I have

organized the literature review's main findings in a historical, chronological, and narrative

manner. However, only a brief mention and summary of the periods of individual and

community involvement in government is described because an exhaustive discussion of

the history is not intended. In the United States, public participation began in the 18th

century with President Thomas Jefferson (1743 -1826), who believed in participatory

democracy, and strengthened in the 19th century by President Woodrow Wilson (1856 –

1924), also known as the father of public administration, who believed in the then

progressive movement’s notion of returning power to the ordinary people via initiatives

and recall elections (Burke, 2001; Krutz et al., 2019). During their time in office, both

Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson supported citizen participation and

influence (Burke, 2001; Krutz et al., 2019).

The Hydraulic Era and Public Participation in Los Angeles Water Resources

Management

Support for public participation and influence that started during the times of

Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson waned during the early 1900s when

the Hydraulic era began. Regional and interregional infrastructure approaches were given

a boost, while corresponding boost was not given to public participation and influence, or

the environment. The Hydraulic era, which began in the 1900s and ended in the 1970s,

was the period when rapid growth would quickly require a shift in California water and

flood policy from local to interregional projects, giving rise to regional governance,

which is another public policy and environmental sustainability concept that this research

study seeks to highlight and bring to public awareness. With the emergence of

interregional projects that could manage water resources and water supply interregionally

and over long distances, Los Angeles and San Francisco decided to secure water to grow

and prosper over the next 100 years (Peden, 2016). Then, by the 1900s, Los Angeles had

exhausted local water supply sources from the Los Angeles River and its tributaries. As a

result, in 1913, Los Angeles built the Owens valley aqueduct, 240 miles away (LADWP,

n.d.). The aqueduct was later extended to the Mono Basin, as the Los Angeles population

grew from 500,000 in the 1920s to 1.2 million in the 1930s (Peden, 2016). For Los

Angeles, the end of the hydraulic era in the 1970s coincided with decades of water

pumping and diversions from the Owens Valley to Los Angeles that followed the Owens

Valley aqueduct's construction in 1913. The decades of water pumping and diversion

contributed to (a) the diminishing of the Owens Lake and lakebed to toxic dust storm; (b)

the diminishing of the water flow to Mono Lake; (c) the imperiling of the wildlife and

Owens economy to scattered agriculture, ranching, and tourism; and (d) the setting of the

stage for the recognition of public trust as a fundamental limit on the exercise of water

rights (Peden, 2016).

Public Participation on the Rise: Hydraulic Era Ends and Environmental Movement

Era Begins

With increasing concern over environmental impacts, ecosystem damage, and

economic cost, water resources management shifted from a “hard path,” which relies on

hydraulic infrastructure, to a “soft path” – the focus of the present study – that considers

participative, collaborative, and efficient water management that is supported by the

United Nations’s Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) approach to

managing water from an integrated and holistic perspective, both in natural water state

and in balancing competing demands for water, to achieve long-term water sustainability

(Wang, 2017).

Beginning in the late 1960s and through the early 1970s, the environmental

movement led members of Congress and the California State legislature to enact a series

of landmark environmental statutes, including the Clean Water Act that requires public

participation (Hanak et al., 2011; Carr et al., 2012; Peden, 2016). The environmental

movement and awareness era’s outcomes included the passage of the Clean Water Act

and implementation of the National Pollutants Discharge and Elimination System

(NPDES) permitting process for publicly owned treatment works (POTW), Safe Drinking

Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, the creation of United States

Environmental Protection Agency, and the passage of the corresponding State of

California water and environmental laws, regulations, and agencies. The federal

government required collaboration and community/public participation in federally

funded projects. The environmental movement and awareness era is also known as the

post hydraulic era. The Federal budget deficit impacted funding for major water diversion

infrastructure projects and limited their construction.

In the United States, the 1970s became “watershed years for citizen participation”

(Glazer et al., 2006, p. 180). The United States government required citizen participation

provisions in many 1970s federal programs and “maximum feasible participation” in

local government programs requiring federal funding (Glazer et al., 2006, p. 180; Carr et

al., 2012). The environmental movement significantly impacted water policy by

facilitating a change in the environment's legal status from a potential consideration to an

actual stakeholder (Hanak et al., 2011; Peden, 2016). As a result, water planning

authorities were legally compelled to consider their decisions' environmental impact

(Peden, 2016). The environmental movement is significantly larger than other social

movements, such as the civil rights movement, the peace movement, and the more recent

Occupy movement (Brulle, n.d.; Hanak et al., 2011; Peden, 2016). Public participation in

government increased during Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson and the

environmental movement and awareness era.

Public Participation on the Decline

Things began to change in the1980s when increasing federal budget deficits,

ongoing government transformation, and rising debt loads ultimately proved

unsustainable (Stone, 2016). The rising budget constraints and other conditions resulted

in sharp shifts in public policy efforts that sought to squelch federal funding of large

water projects and weaken compliance to public participation requirements at the local

levels (Brody et al., 2003; Stone, 2016). Local governments resorted to including legal

public comment and/or a public hearing as part of the budget or other processes to meet

public participation requirements (Brody et al., 2003; Rosener, 1982;). The process of

using public comments and hearing to meet public participation requirements is argued to

be ineffective and obsolete because it suggests that decision-makers do not take their cues

from the public but the staff (Brody et al., 2003; Rosener, 1982;).The declined public

participation showed that public participation exercised little influence and power over

government decision-making. Moreover, most of the public participation that occurred

were failures – mere tokenism (Heller, 2003; Kitchen & Whitney, 2004); costly, offered

no proof of benefits, and lacked clear steps or guides to those seeking more participation

in government (Berry et al., 1993, p. 212). Public participation declined at all levels of

government during this period.

The Need for the Present Research

The decline in public participation suggested fewer citizen stakeholders

collaborated with governments to facilitate more community benefits-oriented water

resources planning and infrastructure. The time is now for the present research, which

will seek to understand the role, depth, and impact of public participation in Los Angeles

water resources planning and promote more public participation awareness, which would

be a positive social change. However, this present research is not intended to be an

empirical study or an exhaustive study, but it would provide fundamental groundwork

and motivation for a future research.

The Courts’ and Natural Events’ Impact on Public Participation

In the 1980s and 1990s, significant public participation events, in the form of

court decisions, took place in California that would impact Los Angeles’s water resources

effort and experience (Hanak et al., 2011). In 1983, the California Supreme Court

amended Los Angeles’s water rights to protect Mono Lake and its tributary creeks - one

of the places where Los Angeles imports its water supply (LADWP. 2013; Hanak et al.,

2011). Also, 1994 was the first time that the State of California integrated its Water Code,

Fish and Game Code, and the common law of public trust (Kiparsky, 2014) that resulted

in the emergence of California’s regional concept integrated water resources planning and

management. In 2014, the people of California embraced sustainable water management

at the state, regional, and local levels, but not because of improved public participation,

but due to natural events, particularly climate change (Hanak et al., 2011); and the 5

consecutive years of drought, from 2012 to 2016. For example, at the state level, the

drought brought about increased attention to California’s water woes and motivated

California Governor Brown and the State Legislators to formally embrace a sustainable

water resource management approach (Peden, 2016). As a result, California enacted its

first sustainable water resources management law in 2014. At the local level, the drought

motivated the City of Los Angeles to enter the second phase of its integrated water

resources planning effort, formally referred to as the One Water LA Program (One Water

LA Program, 2015). A key objective of the One Water LA Program was to achieve

enhanced public participation and integrated planning across all water service functions

of drinking water, wastewater (sewage), and stormwater; and avoid producing duplicative

and cost-prohibitive independent plans for each water service function. The One Water

LA Program includes developing one regional plan affecting drinking water, wastewater,

stormwater (watershed management), water conservation, water reuse, and water

recycling with public participation by citizen stakeholders at the center (One Water LA

Program, 2015). Thus, citizen stakeholders' public participation is now on the

reboundincreasingly accepted and gaining strength in Los Angeles’s water resources

planning and water infrastructure development decisions.

The tracing of Los Angeles’s water resource planning process from historical and

chronological perspectives had many benefits. The historical emphasis provided a

necessary analytic foundation, without which it would be difficult to grasp the full

significance of the present study or interpret its suggested findings reliably. The historical

perspective enabled the four preliminary themes that appeared from the literature review

to be evidenced. The four preliminary or prior themes will be further developed or

clarified by the present research findings. The first of the four preliminary themes is the

absence of public participation during the early stages of Los Angeles’s water resource

planning effort (LADWP, 2013). A second theme, evidenced during this same period, is

the lack of consideration of the sustainable and integrated principle of a balanced

approach to water resources planning (Hanak et al., 2011)—one that emphasizes the

economy, the ecology, and social equity principles that consist of the 3 Es of

sustainability as declared by the United Nations. A third theme was the capacity for

progress over time; for example, in Los Angeles, water authorities appeared willing and

able to learn from the mistakes made by their predecessors, and from the 1990s through

2010s, there have been increased emphasis on integrated planning and a renewed concern

for the environment (Council for Watershed Health, 2015; One Water LA Program, 2015,

Water LA Report, 2018). The fourth and the most important theme is the increased

emphasis on collaborative planning and decision-making, as recognized at multiple

levels, including the courts, government and public sector planners, citizen stakeholders,

and nonprofit organizations. This includes a heightened participative role for individual

stakeholders, private sector organizations, stakeholder organizations, and government

agencies in the Los Angeles water resources planning process (Green, 2007).

Summary

To ensure that the present study benefitted from a wide variety of informative and

relevant sources, I conducted a literature review using a strategic process. I expanded the

search process to include more and diverse source materials, key terms, topics, websites,

and search engines.

I traced Los Angeles’s water resource planning process from historical and

chronological perspectives to highlight the literature search results. The historical

emphasis provided this study with an analytic foundation, without which it would be

difficult to grasp the full significance of the present study or interpret its suggested

findings reliably. The historical perspective enabled the four themes discussed in the

literature review to be presented. As a result, this literature review provided further

evidence of the critical importance of the present research, emphasizing communal and

collaborative decision-making in water resource planning. Chapter 3 is a detailed

discussion regarding the methodology, instrument, data gathering, and data analysis

procedures in this study on communal and collaborative water resources management in

Los Angeles.

Chapter 3: Research Method

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore and understand the

importance, effectiveness, and outcomes of public participation in Los Angeles water

resources management, including water resources infrastructure planning and related

public policy decision-making processes. The research methodology for this study was a

qualitative case study using semistructured interviews with a combination of stakeholders

and actors, individuals, stakeholders’ groups or coalitions, water resources managers,

administrators, and policymakers, to gauge their perceptions of the role and effectiveness

of public participation in the Los Angeles water resources management process. As a

preview, the rest of this chapter contains major sections addressing the following: (a)

research design and rationale; (b) role of the researcher; (c) methodology, consisting of

participant selection, the instruments for data collection, and data analysis; (d) issues of

trustworthiness; and (e) ethical procedures.

Research Design and Rationale

The research design was selected to address the research question for the present

study, which was as follows: What are the roles, importance, effectiveness, and outcomes

of public participation in Los Angeles water resources management? In other words, how

significant is public participation in Los Angeles water resources management outcomes?

This implied an inquiry into whether public participation can influence and achieve

positive changes in Los Angeles water resources management and the associated

decision-making processes. Using the selected research design, I was able to address the

central concept of public participation in the phenomenon of Los Angeles water resources

management, including water resources infrastructure planning and policy

decisionmaking processes.

The research tradition identified and chosen for the present research was

qualitative case study. The rationale for the choice of qualitative case study design was

derived logically from the consideration that chances of Los Angeles-specific solutions

and change to its perennial water scarcity problem might be enhanced by exploring public

participation in the water resources management process. The purpose of exploring,

evaluating, and understanding participatory programs was to assess whether the

objectives were being achieved and to identify how the programs could be improved,

such as by enhancing resource management and involving individuals and groups in a

democratic way (Carr et al., 2012). A qualitative case study research design was chosen

because it provided flexibility and created the opportunity to consider judgments and

make connections to the social world (Virgo & de Chernatony, 2005). Moreover,

qualitative research is helpful in exploring and understanding perceptions (Jackson et al.,

2007), which I sought to do in the present research.

The data sources for this qualitative case study were interviews, focus group

discussions, and my researcher journal. It was expected that the triangulation that

occurred among the interviews, focus group discussions, and my researcher journal, was

sufficient for this research because it is typically sufficient for a qualitative study (Keen et

al., 2018; Rubin & Rubin, 2012).

The qualitative research design is practical and flexible in helping practitioners

address problems in the field. I explored and interpreted participants’ perceptions and

experiences regarding a practical problem in a constructivist or descriptive manner. A

qualitative study was conducted in the most naturalistic setting possible. More than one

data collection source is needed when using a qualitative design; sources included

interviews and focus group discussions. I am aware that some scholars, critical of the

qualitative approach, have expressed concerns regarding “method slurring” or

methodological “mycology” when research is based on a qualitative approach and not

based on a philosophical tradition such as phenomenology or grounded theory approaches

(Kahlke, 2014).

The qualitative design that was chosen for this research was not based merely on

the “interpretivism” paradigm from which most qualitative research emerges (Cohen &

Crabtree, 2006), but also on the interplay and tension that are possible between

“interpretive” and “positivist” paradigms (Bryman, 2004). It was also based on the

understanding that when doing qualitative research, one need not a particular paradigm or

the epistemological, ontological, and methodological underpinnings of a variety of

paradigms (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006), and instead identify with a pragmatic or blended

approach that recognizes a theme. The selection of qualitative design that blends and

straddles interpretivism and positivist paradigms was supported by Bryman (2004),

Morgan (2007), and others, who argued for a more pragmatic approach—one that is

disentangled from the entrapments of the paradigm debate, one that recognizes themes,

and one that sees the benefits of a blended approach. For these reasons, a qualitative case

study was chosen for this research, as the research question that I sought to explore could

be answered in a straightforward way without having to frame the research within an

explicit philosophical, epistemological, or ontological tradition.

Role of the Researcher

My role as the researcher was that of an observer and conductor of semistructured

interviews and was not that of a participant or observer-participant. During participant

interviews, I asked questions and recorded information that I observed or that was

provided by participants in response to my questions. My role included developing the

instrument for data collection, identifying and selecting participants, conducting

semistructured interviews, and developing a data analysis plan.

Under normal circumstances, I would have conducted all semistructured

interviews and focus group discussions in person at an agreed-upon location convenient

to the participant other than my work location. However, given the lockdowns and other

emergency provisions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all of the semistructured

interviews and focus group discussions were conducted and audio recorded online. The

local health directives were followed to ensure maximum safety of the participants and

myself due to the pandemic. The interviews were recorded and transcribed for data

analysis later.

As the researcher, I did not have personal or professional relationships with the

participants. I had not worked with any participant as a supervisor, teacher, mentor, or

coach, over the past 5 years. As a result, I did not have current and detailed personal and

professional knowledge of the study participants that would involve a power differential

that might affect participants’ ability to refuse to participate.

As the researcher, I am aware that the question is not if I had researcher biases,

but rather how I managed any researcher biases that I had. I managed researcher biases by

being transparent in admitting them and seeking a remedy. I was not impartial regarding

the potential themes, and I was not impartial to the possible research findings of the

present study. Decades of formal learning on this topic as a civil engineer, coupled with a

wealth of professional practice experience in water resources planning in Los Angeles,

resulted in developing a particular perspective. This perspective may reflect a degree of

bias. Even where it is possible to formally identify this perspective from an intellectual,

emotional, moral, and social justice perspective, its capacity to influence the results

remained intact. It was not possible to entirely remove bias from this qualitative study

(Creswell, 2018). At a minimum, results were shaped by my perspective, including my

beliefs, expectations, and hopes, because the qualitative study design requires a

researcher to interpret themes and meanings from data (Creswell, 2018). Researcher bias

did not keep me from carrying out the present research in an objective manner.

To minimize the potential impact of researcher bias, I adopted specific preventive

measures. The first step in this process required identifying the most apparent, prevalent,

and/or likely sources of (potential) bias, as such bias might negatively influence the study.

When analyzing research data, I bracketed my personal experience and bias by not

imposing them on the participants’ statements and meanings. I adopted common sense

measures to reduce the likelihood that researcher bias would lead to a tautological study

conclusion. For instance, I believe in community planning; therefore, its impact on water

resource planning in the Los Angeles region must be direct and positive. Specific

common-sense measures could be readily adapted to reduce the likelihood that

tautological reasoning would lead to spurious results. One of these involved raising the

bar in terms of the level, amount, and/or specific quality of evidence required before

confirming any key study findings. In terms of the present study, multiple sources of

evidence, as derived from interviews of citizen stakeholders and focus group sessions,

were analyzed.

Methodology

Participant Selection Logic

The population for this qualitative study consisted of those individuals,

stakeholder groups, Los Angeles water resources agency managers, administrators, and

public officials (elected and appointed) who participated in or were knowledgeable about

the water resources management challenges in Los Angeles. This study’s participant

inclusion criteria were broad to allow flexibility and efficiency of the research effort.

However, to establish how participants were known to meet the criteria, before the

interviews, I requested that the participants provide demographic information, including

how long they had participated in Los Angeles’s water resources planning, as well as a

show of knowledge of the challenges associated with public participation in the Los

Angeles water scarcity problem if I did not already have this information.

The sampling strategy indicated that the number of participants or cases for this

qualitative study should be 10. The rationale for having 10 participants was that this

number met the consensus average participant size for a qualitative study in public policy

and administration. Based on Merriam and Tisdell (2015) and Rubin and Rubin (2012),

for Walden University’s School of Public Policy and Administration, seven is the average

number of participants needed to reach saturation in qualitative research. This was

consistent with a sample size of up to 10 participants for the present research. However, I

ended up using 19 participants to reach saturation due to the large scope of the research

topic.

The analyses conducted as part of this study used data gathered from sources that

included semistructured interviews and focus group discussions. Sampling strategies

included the methods and procedures by which I identified and recruited potential

participants. For instance, participants were identified and recruited voluntarily. No

incentives were offered to participants to recruit them, other than the motivation to help

Los Angeles people understand how they had been participating or not participating in

water resources planning decisions that affected their quality of life. I made the

participant selection decisions with supervision from my committee chair.

My participant recruitment approach was as informal and casual as possible. To

recruit participants, I sought their permission by emailing them an invitation to participate

and a consent form. I requested their consent through an email response. The recruited

participants were required to give written and informed consent. Participants were free

not to answer any questions that seemed uncomfortable or too personal. Additionally,

participants were free to discontinue participation at any time. Interviews and focus group

sessions were conducted when formal approval from Walden’s Institutional Review

Board (IRB). Permissions were not required from alternative agencies. During the

participant interviews and focus group sessions, I knew that saturation was reached when

the participants’ perceptions and responses and the evidence that I was seeking began to

repeat.

Instrumentation

This qualitative study’s data collection instrument was the interview and focus

group questions as approved by the IRB. I expected each interview and focus group to

involve no more than nine questions and take approximately 90 minutes (Appendix A).

However, each lasted more than 90 minutes, or approximately 110 minutes and 141

minutes, respectively. The interview and focus group questions were not supplemented

with an observation sheet but were audio recorded. No existing peer-reviewed secondary

data were available at the study site.

I based instrument development on literature sources, as well as consultation with

my dissertation committee, colleagues, and peers. I did not conduct a pilot study. Instead

of a pilot study, I developed instruments that were peer reviewed to establish credibility

and transferability. I shared my interview questions with a person who had the necessary

qualifications to ensure that I had developed reasonably understandable and strategic

questions. I knew that I had achieved the sufficiency of the researcher-produced data

collection instrument to answer the research question and content credibility when

feedback from my committee, colleagues, and peers got close to the responses that I

sought, which was when the feedback began to repeat.

Procedures for Data Collection

The data collection instrument included interview protocols designed to address

the research question. I collected the data by using the interview protocols in conducting

the interview and focus group sessions. The frequency of data collection was often as I

interacted with study participants, which included online interviews and focus group

sessions via GoToMeeting.com, with some participants calling via phone. The data

collection duration was how long it took to complete the participant interviews and focus

group sessions, which was approximately 110 and 141 minutes, respectively, over 2

weeks. Data collection focused on relevant themes, and the interview and focus group

sessions were structured according to an open-ended process. This encouraged

participants to share information that best suited their individual needs and/or experiences

as a key benefit.

The data were recorded with the participants’ permission. Audio recording was

announced beforehand to avoid any surprises. The interview and focus group sessions

were audio recorded, and transcribed notes were taken for the interview and focus group

sessions. Recruitment did not result in too few participants, so another round of outreach

to potential participants was unnecessary. Participants were free to exit the study at any

time. However, that did not occur, so participant debriefing was not necessary. The

recorded data will be stored in a password-protected system and renewed annually, for up

to 5 years. Only me have access to the password-protected system.

Data Analysis Plan

The research data that I collected for this study connected with the research

questions upon which the data collection instruments were based. Data coding was done

using NVivo, a specialty qualitative data coding and analysis software that I found very

easy to use, which helped me understand the data better than manual coding. Discrepant

cases were highlighted, reconfirmed with participants, and brought to the committee

chairperson for further consideration. Based on the greater than expected number of

interview and focus group sessions and the longer than anticipated duration of each

interview and focus group session, I had a great deal of text to code and interpret. NVivo

qualitative analysis software helped me to organize and manage data.

The study design influenced the procedure for coding and analyzing data for this

research. As noted, the present research was purposively organized according to the

structure of a qualitative study, as defined by Merriam and Tisdell (2015). At a broad

level, data were analyzed in a narrative context and thematically. Initially, the analytic

focus was upon identifying salient conceptual themes and patterns. The analysis at this

point drew from the data gathered from the participant interview and focus group

sessions. After I had identified key themes and patterns, these concepts and phenomena

were clearly described.

The data contained in transcripts were analyzed through the primary use of textual

analysis. At this stage of the analysis, the primary objective was to provide confirmation

(and/or disconfirmation) for the conceptual findings and themes generated in the literature

review. In terms of new learning generated, the study’s findings were explained in detail,

with an emphasis on explaining the concepts clearly.

Emerging Themes and Patterns

The research study was conceptual and emphasized the a priori themes that

emerged from the literature review, as shown in Table 2. The a priori themes were used

as anticipated themes. The research’s primary task was to identify and interpret the

meanings and significance of the two possible sets of themes involved. Two possible

themes were the anticipated themes from the literature review and themes that emerged

from the analysis of the transcribed and coded data obtained from the semistructured

interviews and focus group sessions. I used the a priori themes as preliminary codes for

analyzing the data, which enabled other themes to emerge as I analyzed the data from the

semistructured interviews and focus group sessions that I conducted for the present study.

The a priori themes provided a starting point for data analysis and further demonstrated

the research topic’s relationship to the extant literature and the research question.

Table 2

A Priori Themes

A priori themes

Descriptions

Effectiveness

The factors or conditions that can lead to the success or

failure of public participation in Los Angeles water

resources management

Importance

Why public participation in Los Angeles water

resources management is important

Outcomes

Evidence or lack of evidence of public participation

impact in Los Angeles water resources management

Roles

The parts that the public can or ought to play in Los

Angeles water resources management, including

voluntary or obligatory rights, responsibilities, and

actions

Issues of Trustworthiness, Credibility, Saturation, Transferability, and

Confirmability

Appropriate strategies to establish credibility included triangulation between the

interview and the focus group responses as suitable for a qualitative study, and the

prolonged contact of hours and days, instead of the prolonged engagement of weeks and

months with participants. The strategies to establish credibility consisted of member

checks that include participants’ confirmation of their responses, test veracity of the data,

analytic categories (e.g., codes), interpretations, and conclusions. Saturation was reached

when the understanding being sought began to repeat or when the same stories, themes,

issues, and topics emerged from the interview and focus group session participants

(Boyce & Neale, 2006). The appropriate strategies used to establish transferability

included a full description that specified the minimum elements necessary to re-create

findings. The strategy also included a detailed description of the participants, procedures,

and context to enable others to judge the similarity to possible application sites. The

research findings are available to other areas of comparable contexts, situations, and

people - conditions similar enough to make findings applicable, to use as they see fit, as

another strategy for achieving transferability. The appropriate strategies used to establish

dependability included audit trails related to the recording of the following: raw data;

process and products of data reduction, analysis, and synthesis; methodological process

notes; reflexive notes; and instrument development techniques. Dependability was also

established by triangulation to account for instability and change within the natural

context. Also, naturally occurring phenomena were documented to establish stability and

change. The appropriate strategies used to establish confirmability related authenticating

the internal coherence of data, findings, interpretations, and recommendations, included

documenting the researcher as an instrument and potential bias sources. The

confirmability strategies included keeping reflexive journals that consist of the

researcher’s notes and the documentation of my thinking throughout the research process.

Ethical Procedures

To avoid potential ethical dilemmas, agreements to gain access to participants and

data were not necessary from the participant and the institutions that own the data.

However, access to the data was gained from publicly available sources as approved by

—the IRB (Rudestam & Newton, 2015). Also, actual documents that described how

human participants were treated were included in the IRB application. There was not a

need to obtain institutional permissions, as approved by the IRB. In the IRB application, I

described the ethical concerns associated with recruitment materials, processes, and

procedures, as well as a plan to address them. I also included ethical concerns related to

data collection and intervention activities in the IRB application, including participants

refusing participation, participant early withdrawal, response to anticipated adverse

events, and a plan to address them. However, they did not occur. All results obtained

through interviews were held strictly confidential.

Potential ethical concerns were also minimized by adhering to standardized

procedures transparently and systematically. As one illustration, informed consent was

required from all selected participants for the final study sample (Rudestam & Newton,

2015). Although not related to sampling, per se, study participants benefited from clear

instructions and an explanation of the purpose of the study (O’Sullivan et al., 2008). In

this regard, every participant was treated equitably with respect, justice, and beneficence

(O’Sullivan et al., 2008). Other potential ethical issues were minimized by (a)

considering the impacts of sampling instruments on vulnerable and marginalized

populations; (b) respecting varying cultures; and (c) by avoiding framing potentially

distressing personal issues in a judgmental, non-inclusive, dismissive, and insensitive

manner (Walden University IRB, 2013). Ultimately, ethical issues were minimized by

upholding the US Constitution’s democratic principle of inalienable rights, particularly

when marginalized and vulnerable populations are participating; and by holding

paramount the health, safety, and welfare of the public (American Society of Professional

Engineers [ASCE], 2016; National Society of Professional Engineers [NSPE], 2016)

Summary

In summary, this was a qualitative case study. The methodology included

semistructured interviews of participants and focus group sessions conducted online,

audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded using NVivo software. Then data were analyzed,

and emerging themes and patterns were identified. At each stage of the research process,

concerted steps were taken to enhance the likelihood that the study would achieve its

primary objectives. As a result, new learning and knowledge were generated in terms of

the research and actual practice, with detailed results presented in Chapter 4.

Chapter 4: Results

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore and understand, from the

participant’s perspective, the roles, importance, effectiveness, and outcomes of public

participation in Los Angeles water resources management to address Los Angeles’s

challenge of providing a reliable water supply while lessening dependence on imported

water supply. The research question was as follows: What are the roles, importance,

effectiveness, and outcomes of public participation in Los Angeles water resources

management? In the remainder of this chapter, I present data collection, data analysis, and

the results that will be the basis for conclusions and recommendations in Chapter 5.

Research Setting

The coronavirus pandemic meant stress, unemployment, or working from home

for many Americans. This made safety, health, and outright survival of utmost importance

to participants. This was a shared challenge to data collection. The national political

divide of the last 4 years, particularly the political tension and trauma from the November

3, 2020 national election, was only a month away from the start of data collection for this

study. Both the data collection during December 2020 and data analysis during January

2021 and February 2021 were conducted against the backdrop of raging, resurging

coronavirus pandemic. Additionally, the Washington, DC demonstration of January 6,

2021 and the racial justice demonstrations of the previous 9 months were still fresh

experiences for all participants, which brought heightened attention to the discussion of

equity and the social and environmental justice issues that were central to the present

study. These events may also have influenced participants’ experiences at the time of the

study and their responses to climate change and drought impacts on water policy and

mobilizing the base and grassroots nonprofit organizations to participate in policy

resources planning meetings. Despite the unique challenges, I was able to collect valuable

data to draw meaningful conclusions.

Demographics

The following participant demographics and characteristics were relevant to the

study:

• Community stakeholders included one Hispanic male, two Caucasian females,

one Caucasian male, and one African American female.

• Water agency managers/engineering consultants included three African

American males, two Asian American males, two Middle Eastern American

males, three Caucasian males, and one Hispanic female.

• Policymakers included one mixed-race (Black, White, and indigenous) female

and two Caucasian males.

Among the study’s 19 participants, one was mixed race (Black, White, and indigenous),

two were Hispanic, eight were Caucasian, four were African American, two were Asian

American, and two were Middle Eastern American. Seven participated in online

individual semistructured interviews, and 12 participated in one of the three online focus

group sessions that I conducted.

Data Collection

Number of Participants From Whom Each Type of Data Was Collected

I collected data from the following two sources: (a) virtual real-time individual

semistructured interviews (Source 1) with seven participants and (b) focus group

discussion sessions (Source 2) with 12 participants. The 12 focus group participants were

NGO managers and leaders, water agency managers and consultants, and staff of the

Mayor’s Office and a Council Office. I conducted both the interviews and the focus group

sessions to gather the participants’ experiences on Los Angeles water resources

management, with which all of the participants were familiar.

All 19 participants were asked preliminary questions about the challenges facing

Los Angeles water resources management and the outcomes and roles of public

participation in addressing these challenges. After that, the focus group participants were

asked questions concerning the community, nonprofit, and individual participation roles

and outcomes. The remaining seven participants were individually interviewed and asked

questions regarding institutional decision-making and policy-making processes and

practices. With the participants’ permission, the online interviews and focus group

participants’ responses were automatically audio recorded and transcribed using the

GoToMeeting.com system. The audio recording was announced beforehand, as indicated

in the participant agreement.

Location and Duration of Data Collection

The three focus group sessions and the seven individual interviews were

conducted online. The interviews and focus group sessions were conducted within a

2week duration, from December 5, 2020 through December 23, 2020. Both data audio

recording and transcription were automatically done online using the GoToMeeting.com

system for the individual interviews and focus group discussion sessions. The average

time duration for the seven individual interviews was 110 minutes or approximately 2

hours, while the average time duration for the focus group sessions was 141 minutes or

approximately 2.5 hours.

The participants were familiar and experienced with Los Angeles water resources

management issues and challenges as participating public water agency managers or

policymakers. Each participant had specific responsibilities and perspectives on the

questions asked, which provided the needed diversity of opinions while at the same time

not affecting their responses or the result interpretation.

There were a few minor variations from the data collection plan. For instance,

instead of Zoom, GoToMeeting.com was used to audio record and transcribe the

individual interviews and focus group sessions. Both the interviews and focus group

sessions lasted longer than the estimated 90 minutes. The interviews and focus group

sessions were completed within 2 weeks, compared to the estimated duration of 2

months. Instead of recruitment resulting in fewer than the expected 10 participants, nine

more participants were recruited to reach saturation, for a total of 19 participants, of

which seven participants were individually interviewed and the remaining 12 participated

in focus group sessions. This meant that another round of outreach to potential

participants was not necessary as anticipated and was not conducted. No participant

exited the interviews or the focus group sessions, though participants were free to exit at

any time. As a result, participant debriefing was neither conducted nor necessary, and no

adjustments to the process were necessary. Data collection was audio recorded with the

participants’ permission. The audio recording was announced beforehand. Data were

stored in a password-protected database that is renewable annually for 5 or more years, to

which only I have access. Other than the ongoing coronavirus pandemic-related

lockdowns, the divisive national politics, the November 3, 2020 national election, and

months of racial justice demonstrations across the nation, there were no unusual

circumstances in data collection.

Data Analysis

Thematic Analysis

The NVivo software system was used to code and organize data gathered from

three focus group discussion sessions and seven individual semistructured interviews. The

NVivo coding process started by importing the transcribed interview and focus group

data, in pdf format, onto the NVivo software. The NVivo software facilitated the coding

and development of nodes (subthemes) by dividing up focus group and interview data

into concise words and phrases used to search or identify and code.

At first, an automatic data coding approach and analysis were used to gain an

overall picture and trend. However, the coding approach was later modified to include an

interpretative data coding and analysis strategy that used the combined theory-driven or

top-down and data-driven or bottom-up approaches of the thematic analysis to identify

emerging themes. The first process of the thematic analysis was applying the top-down

approach, which Clarke and Braun (2014) described as establishing broad a priori themes

or master codes guided by the research question and based on the concepts and theories

from the literature search and review. The application of the top-down approach identified

and described four a priori themes (master codes), as shown in Table 2. The four a priori

themes reflected what I heard from the study participants and aligned with both the

research question and the literature review.

With the broad a priori themes or master codes developed, the thematic analysis

second process applied the data-driven, bottom-up strategy that involved identifying

common words or phrases from the focus group and interview responses to establish the

subthemes (nodes). By applying the thematic bottom-up, data-driven strategy in an

interpretative NVivo data coding and analysis manner, three overarching themes—roles,

effectiveness, and outcomes—emerged. The three overarching themes that emerged from

bottom-up data analysis matched the four a priori themes of roles, importance,

effectiveness, and outcomes shown in Table 2. The difference was that the prior theme of

“importance” did not emerge as one of the overarching themes because it only had two

files or sources and only seven references or quotes. As a result, I coalesced it into the

emergent overarching theme of “roles,” which then became the emergent overarching

theme of “important roles.”

The participants discussed the roles of public participation in Los Angeles water

resources management with 372 quotes, compared to 357 quotes for outcomes and 135

quotes for effectiveness. The resulting codebook of categories, subcategories, and open

codes had many layers and levels that had to be collapsed together (clustered) logically,

initially during NVivo coding and later during data analysis, to allow patterns, categories,

codes, and themes to emerge. Initially, tree mapping or cluster analysis was run in NVivo,

but eventually, I found it more efficient to approach the task logically and conceptually.

Subsequently, I applied pattern coding and looked for similarities or differences among

the subcategories and open codes to collapse them. Thus, I applied a coding tree approach

to the codes and categories to derive the themes.

Discrepant Case

The discrepant case was the importance of public participation in Los Angeles

water resources management, with seven quotes from only two of the 10 sources or files

coded. The sources consisted of three focus group discussion sessions and seven

individual semistructured interviews. The discrepant case’s qualities were factored into

the analysis by combining it with public participation roles in Los Angeles water

resources management due to their similarities. This was because public participation

would not have played any role in Los Angeles water resources management if it were

unimportant or essential. In this sense, the importance of public participation in Los

Angeles water resources management was the same as the roles of public participation in

Los Angeles water resources management. As a result, the importance became one of the

codes and emergent subthemes for the main theme of the roles of public participation.

Emergent Themes

The three overarching themes that emerged from the thematic bottom-up,

dataanalysis using the NVivo software system were the roles, effectiveness, and outcomes

of public participation in Los Angeles water resources management. The three

overarching themes that emerged from data analysis matched the four a priori themes

from the literature review and research question, as shown in Table 2, except the a priori

theme of importance that did not emerge because it was already part of the important

roles overarching theme.

Roles

One of the three overarching themes that emerged from data analysis was the

“roles” of public participation in Los Angeles water resources management. The

participants discussed the overarching theme of roles as the parts that the public can or

ought to play in Los Angeles water resources management, including voluntary or

obligatory rights, responsibilities, and actions. The participants identified and discussed

the following eight subthemes of the overarching theme of roles of public participation in

Los Angeles water resources management:

• communication,

• equity,

• governance,

• political will,

• regulatory role,

• trust,

• sustainability and resiliency, and

• importance.

The participants’ discussions of each of the above subthemes are presented below

for the “roles” overarching theme.

Communication. Communication was one of the subthemes for key components

of public participation in Los Angeles water resources management that participants

discussed. The participants discussed the importance of the water agencies considering

themselves part of the community and members of the public to further open up

communication pathways for meaningful community engagement.

Here are some of the key things that the participants shared about how opening

and strengthening communication pathways play an important role in public participation

in Los Angeles water resources management. Participant P9 set the tone for this

discussion by sharing that the role of public participation in Los Angeles water resources

management is to re-establish and strengthen communication between community

members and their elected or appointed representatives. Additionally, Participant P9

shared that water agency managers working on a project for which the community needed

to be engaged, would first go to the community’s elected representatives for help to host a

meeting for the constituents. In this manner, the water agency managers, would be

effectively re-establishing and strengthening the elected representatives’ lost or weakened

position in the relationship flow with their constituents in the community and water

agencies. This approach works even better, if the water agencies view themselves as part

of the community they serve, because that would enable them to look out for the best

possible way to engage most if not all of their fellow community members. This is

because the representatives are appointed or elected to represent every community

member.

Also, according to Participant P9, driven by the desire not to leave out any community

resident from attending, participating, and being informed, the water agency

managers would first go through the representatives who were elected to

represent every constituent. This approach would also have the added benefit of

re-establishing and strengthening the elected representatives as policymakers with

authority over the water agencies that could be utilized to accomplish community

needs more effectively and efficiently than attempting direct outreach to every

community resident with the agency’s limited resources. Working together in this

manner as members of the public, the agencies, and the communities would be

collectively encouraging, if not forcing the elected representatives to play their

part in a way that would help to re-establish some of the communication

pathways, or open the communication pathways more, as the participative and

constitutional democratic principle of elected representation was designed to

work.

The agencies’ view of themselves as part of the public that they serve, placed on

them the obligation to not only open communication pathways between the public and

their elected representative, but also to open communication pathways between the

agencies themselves and the community they serve, by informing residents correctly as to

where community members could make informed decisions and demand necessary

changes. In support, Participant P17 shared, it was not only that the water industry must

reach out when they want public input, but it is also the water industry’s responsibility to

reach out to all segments

of the community through a variety of forums, including through their elected

representatives.

Also, in agreement, Participant P14 shared,

“people will, if given the tools of how to participate, step up to make a change.

For example, the agencies have a responsibility to be able to provide their water

quality reports, not just in the English language, but in a way that’s

understandable to folks so that they can do something about it.”

The participants addressed improving communication pathways between the

community and their elected representatives and water agency managers. However, for

the discussion loop of the communication roles of public participation in Los Angeles

water resources management to be complete, the participants discussed improving

communication among agencies themselves and developing unified and coordinated

water policies, plans, and messages. Participant P2 summed up this aspect of the

communication role loop by sharing that though communication among water agencies

had improved, there remained room for improvements, of which having a coordinated

message between the agencies is most important.

The conclusion from participants discussion of the communication subtheme is

that the communication role of public participation in water resources management are

to:

• re-establish the communication between community members and their

representatives;

• ensure agencies increase their communication and outreach through the

representatives that re-establishes the policymaker roles in the communication

relationship flow or pathways, with the constituents, if not open up the

communication pathway, to engage more persons and leave fewer or no individuals

and communities out; and

• ensure agencies provide information in a way that's understandable to folks, by

rightly or correctly informing community members, and reaching out to all segments

of the community through a variety of forums, as well as by having a coordinated

message among the agencies.

Equity. Equity is another important subtheme or a key component of the roles of

public participation in Los Angeles water resources management, and here are the

reasons why, from participants’ perspectives. The tone for the discussion of the equity

roles of public participation in Los Angeles water resources management was set by

Participant P9 who shared that equity is an important role of public participation, without

which blind spots, such as systematic racism, and gaps, such as environmental justice

issues develop and widen in Los Angeles water resources management, now and through

the generations. In suggesting a possible solution, Participants P5 and P8 shared that the

narrative must change from the top to an inclusive one that brings all the voices to the

table and listens to all the voices, without skewing the voice of the public towards those

who are higher in income as compared with the broader public and even the interest of

the broader public. Also, the narrative shall share

all benefits and burdens equally, whether they have the wherewithal to participate

and sustain over the long term or not.

According to Participant P8, “having an opportunity to engage needs to have a

certain amount of equity allocated to it so that it is not just limited to the few.” In support,

Participant P6 declared that the equity issue is a big challenge because “the way things

were done in the past did not take into account everybody's voice, and we need to

consider that today.”

Participants P8, P15, P16, and P18 shared that the need of every community

resident to be valued equally can be achieved by (a) making sure to work

collaboratively and in equal partnerships; (b) making sure that water agencies

care about the communities they serve; (c) ensuring consistent and affordable

access to clean drinking water, for all, instead of having certain communities to

drink substandard water because they are too poor to maintain their water pipes;

and (d) addressing the common notion among water agencies that all

stakeholders are not created equally, which deems some as influencers while

others not.

According to Participant P9, in almost any engagement process, the biggest challenge is

making sure to be equitable in approach and holding paramount the first

principle of Environmental justice - "that the individuals whom an effort will

impact, should have a voice in how the effort plays out.” When discussing the

large Los Angeles diverse and densely populated community resident

constituents whom the project would

impact, it is difficult to get to everybody and do it in an equitable way. So, all of

these become political power, relationships, and whatnots that stretch us away

from public participation and engagement.

The participants discussed that the state and federal governments should help, if

not intervene, beyond the means of certain local water agencies to address the

environmental impacts and equity issues of water quality and infrastructure deficiencies

to ensure safe, quality water for all residents to drink. The participants pointed out that as

public awareness and expectations for public participation have increased, community

members are to be expected, if not granted the ability to have more interest and control

over their communities, and outcomes that impact their health, economy, and safety,

including the safety and reliability of their drinking water.

In summary of the equity subtheme, the participants shared that equity plays the

following important roles in public participation:

• preventing the blind spots of systematic racism and the gaps of environmental

justice issues from developing and widening into the future;

• changing the narrative at the top to an inclusive narrative that levels the playing

field by bringing all of the voices to the table, both of persons and the environment;

• ensuring consistent, quality, and affordable access to clean drinking water to all;

• allowing residents and stakeholders to have more control over their communities

and interests in outcomes that impact their health, economy, and safety; and finally,

• establishing the political power and relationships that ensures an equitable approach

making sure the persons impacted by an effort have a voice in how the

effort plays out.

Governance. Participants agreed that one of the roles of public participation is to

understand how the Los Angeles water resources management governance structure

impedes public participation and re-structure it to enhance public participation.

Participant P1 shared that part of the problem is the disjointedness of the various water

agencies and their lack of cohesion regarding water policy vision for the future and

coordinated public message. Participant P15 shared that there is no overarching

governance structure, priority, or message around Los Angeles water resources

management, with over 200 fragmented entities and fractured agencies operating in silos.

Further, Participant P15 shared,

“that the vastness of the Los Angeles area and its large population as the nation’s

second biggest city, which is coupled with fragmented land use planning, are

beckoning for an effective super regional water resources management agency to

allow public participation to flourish and further lessen dependence on the

imported water supply. Public participation, leadership, and political governance

structure have been fragmented and limited in transparency and scrutiny that the

agencies have become self-serving and inefficient in managing water resources,

the very thing they are set up to address.”

Additionally, participants P15 and P16 shared that the big population and vastness

of the area make Los Angeles one of the most challenging places to work and bring folks

together around a common vision and build partnerships. Also, according to Participant

P16, there is a gap in local and state leadership that is not helping with the water

governance issue. In apparent agreement, Participant P1 shared,

“the City of LA has one agency, the LADWP that is tasked with delivering

potable water, and another agency, the LA Sanitation that is tasked with managing

wastewater and there is a hard line between the two agencies, showing the

disjointedness of Los Angeles water agencies when all water is the same, whether

it is recycled water, wastewater, stormwater, potable water, recycle water,

reclaimed water, or groundwater.”

Furthermore, Participant P1 shared that as Los Angeles water agencies’

framework for discussing and collaborating is emerging, so also is messaging starting to

emerge around the concepts of ‘one water’ and ‘no wasted water,’ but that there is not yet

a uniform message.” According to Participant P1, there is also “notable resentment

towards the city of Los Angeles or historical resentment towards wholesomeness between

the city of Los Angeles and Metropolitan Water District. We are missing strong

leadership. It is a very fragmented approach.”

Political Will. The participants shared that exercising “Political Will" is an

important role of the public in Los Angeles water resources management, especially if

expressed through the democratic representative system of government, which will make

our lives easier in getting the community needs to be addressed. According to Participant

P9, “the best community engagement process handled by an agency for a project, even

the best one, is a pale shadow of representative democracy working the way it is

supposed to.” According to participants P5, P9, and P15, it is all about exercising the

political will and leadership in coming up with the goals, agenda, priorities and

establishing the voice of the public and the

community to the hearing of the public administers and policymakers and holding

them accountable for addressing those things to the satisfaction of the community. To

emphasize, Participant P15 shared, “We like our elected to be leaders, and some of them

are, and that is great, but when they are not, the way to remove elected officials is through

people's power.” Participant P9 shared, it means managing the relationships between

human beings so that the community residents can trust each other and make collective

decisions. It is about the public re-engaging representatives to speak for all the

community members who put them in that role. It is the understanding that government is

not some other entity that is working against us or for us; instead, the government is us. It

is a representation of our collective will. So, all the regulatory actions of the government

carry out the will of the community members, through representative democratic

processes of passing laws and ordinances and policies, and raising taxes, and all the other

things that the community wanted to be done; and the more times we bring that out

through public participation and remind ourselves of it, the more we will be able to invest

in it working well and make our lives easier.

Participants P1, P9, and P14, shared, it is public participation role to get involved and get

the policymaker involved but not allow the political process to get hijacked by

special interests or influential individuals while interacting, collaborating, and

building partnerships with the agencies and local organizations.

Participant P9 shared,

the things that need to change do not have strong political public participation.

the things that change, you can usually find that the public was engaged in

making the change happen. Policy change always picks up strength from the

community, or someone, because someone has to be engaged enough that the

policymakers will affect change or resist change.

Regulatory Role. The participants discussed that addressing regulatory

challenges is the role of the regulated permittees, such as public agencies. However,

ultimately it is the role of the public in so far as ensuring the community needs are met,

especially, as discussed herein. It is the public’s role to get some consistency between

state, county, and all other different regulations that encourage the right type of water

resources projects that the community needs. According to Participant P6, “it is really

important that you do not have things that stop you from being able to do the right thing,

just so that you meet the regulation.” Participant P7 shared,

“public engagement and public outreach increased because there was a state order

(and regulation) for the entire state of California to conserve water. One way the

public can support being less dependent on imported water would be to support

favorable regulations for developing local water resources, including stormwater

management (stormwater capture and reuse) and water recycling.”

In agreement, participants P12 and P18 shared that it would be in the public's interest to

ensure that regulations protect the public they are established to serve and not hamstring

them by eliminating flexibility and options that the public might need later.

Also, Participants P3, P8, P12, and P18 discussed,

part of the public regulatory roles can include understanding the process of

regulatory development and how regulations can be proposed and passed to get

what the community wants as well as getting the regulatory agencies to weigh in

where water agencies or anyone owns responsibility, like in cleaning up pollution.

Trust. Participants agreed that establishing and maintaining trust is an important

public participation role in Los Angeles water resources planning, because trust is one of

the biggest challenges to Los Angeles's ability to establish a reliable water supply.

According to Participant P6, “one big challenge in terms of bringing reliable and

sustainable water supply to everyone in Los Angeles, is the issue of trust. Many persons

do not trust the water that comes out of their tap.” Participant P6 shared, “There is an

NGO called WeTap that LADWP partnered with on water trust issues.” Participants P1

and P16 shared that they supported the idea of collaborative partnerships between local

grassroots groups, NGOs, and water agencies, but only if coupled with trust and not

skewed towards the self-serving interests of the water agencies and their allied NGOs, to

the detriment of the public interest.

Participants P1and P2 discussed that that there had been a long-standing resentments

and polarizations among the communities and the water agencies due to lack

of trust. The community members are not yet trusting the water agencies to

the extent that the agencies would want. There is room to improve trust.

According to Participant P2, “the key to building trust is building those relationships over

the years. There is still some distress and, specifically, with water-providers, for example,

LADWP and water quality, and a lot of that distress exist in disadvantaged communities.”

Discussing the issue of trust, in the entire State of California, including

Los Angeles, Participant P9 shared, there has been an undercurrent in California “that

persons in Elective Office are being acted upon by forces that we cannot trust.”

This created the need to have direct relationships between the community

members and the technical experts at the water agencies, bypassing the elected

representatives who are supposed to represent the entire community.

Sustainability and Resiliency. As one of the key roles of public participation in

Los Angeles water resources management, the participants discussed the subtheme of

sustainability mindset that includes resiliency, as the long-term, holistic, and

nonexploitative approach,. For example, the participants shared the concept of

sustainability and resiliency that is not destroying one ecosystem for another to bring

more water to Los Angeles as was done during the Extraction Era, but one of an

integrated, holistic approach to water resources solutions. The participants shared the

understanding that sustainability may not be cheap or incremental but may require urgent,

bold, complex, innovative, and transforming steps to address the community's needs,

especially now that the easy solutions have been utilized. The participants discussed the

need to pay for sustainability, not destroy the ecosystem, and view water as a high-priced

commodity that requires a holistic approach and solutions to manage. In agreement,

Participant P17 shared,

“sustainable water resources require that the water industry be concerned with the

long-term conditions of water resources and ensure that it is safe and reliable for

generations to come. We cannot continue to think in silos but look at the holistic

picture of water services, the persons that need to drink it, and the environment

that needs it to keep the ecosystem stable. We cannot look at one area without the

other. So, a holistic approach needs to be established when exploring water

solutions.”

In support, Participant P1shared that “water resources managers and policymakers have

not always considered participative sustainable and integrated principles approach and

have been operating in a state of depletion of the groundwater basins.”

In agreement, Participant P18 shared,

“from the state to the federal, it makes sense, because of the of the issue of

unintended consequences, to have an integrated, holistic approach to come up

with the best outcomes, given all the circumstances, and not end up with conflicts

or detrimental impacts trying to solve one specific issue.”

In support, Participant P17 shared,

“water is a finite resource that must be sustainable, by producing an overall

holistic plan that serves all the parties involved with emphasis on the climate and

the environment, particularly now all the simple projects are done. Now is the

time to do the hard, expensive projects that require much innovation, much

engineering, and this is where are we.”

The participants discussed the need to pay for sustainability and the cost for the

environment, which we have impacted drastically. In agreement, Participant P17 shared

that “we have to pay the cost to ensure sustainability so we can ensure that there is

enough water to meet the needs of this generation and future generations. We should do it

in an environmentally sustainable manner.”

As the residents of the Colorado River and the State Water Project areas are

feeling the pressure of climate change and the need to reduce water supply for

environmental reasons than continue to export them to Los Angeles, Los Angeles is

looking at that, pondering what the next water source is for them, and has started to think

more about sustainable solutions. According to Participant P17,

“Los Angeles had abundant artesian wells in the 1920s, over 600 artesian wells,

but nobody was thinking sustainability. Instead, everybody thought that every

time Los Angeles residents would run out of one source of water supply, they

would find another one. First, Los Angeles ran out of water from the Los Angeles

River and then from ‘in-basin’ groundwater resources. Today Los Angeles gets its

water from the Owens Valley, the Colorado River, and the State Water Project, all

resources strained by climate change leading the City to explore sustainable

options to meet the needs of the City.”

Thus, for Los Angeles, it is time to look inward, and increase water recycling, re-use, and

conservation and achieve more efficiency, coordinated policy, and unified message

through integrated regional planning, adaptive management, and collaborative

partnerships.

Regarding resiliency, Participants P9 and P14 shared, the ecological mode of

resiliency ought to be the goal and with it the ability to resist disturbance until

you cannot, then it becomes recovering from disturbance into a stronger position

than when you were disturbed, growing back better, and building back better

because it makes personal sense, social sense, and collective sense.

In conclusion, the participants discussed the importance of the sustainability role

of public participation in Los Angeles water resources management, which is to develop,

fund, and implement the holistic, sustainable, resilient, participative, collaborative,

integrated, and adaptive approach to Los Angeles water resources management; to

achieve the desired community goals, but not at the detriment of other people’s welfare or

the environment.

Importance. The participants discussed the importance of public participation in

Los Angeles water resources management and shared that without being important:

• public participation will have no role to play and would not make a difference as has

been proven; and

• the project would be impacted or stopped by the policymakers or at the courts if that

engagement is not done.

According to Participant P18, this means that public engagement is highly beneficial if

not critically important in terms of being able to get the project done.” In agreement,

Participant P2 shared,

“there are many areas where we can improve our collaborations. I think that is

where public participation comes. We collaborate with stakeholders to come up

with policy recommendations to be able to include environmental justice or

prioritize environmental justice more; it is important to bring the public and to be

able to make those policy changes and to have the support of the public because

they have been involved from the beginning of the planning process, before the

projects, so that they can be with us throughout the entire process of planning and

implementing solutions.”

The participants discussed that public participation and engagement are important

in Los Angeles water resources management, especially if the public is involved and

engaged from the very beginning and not as an afterthought. However, how planning

presents information to the public makes a difference in getting the outcome the

community wants. According to Participant P18,

“public participation makes a difference, but it also comes with how the planning

and presentation of information to the public goes. It is good to have public

participation, hopefully ultimately leading to what the community wants. I think

the danger is how the issues are framed.”

Effectiveness

Participants discussed that the overarching theme of effectiveness of public

participation in Los Angeles water resources management depends on the cost or

available resources and incentives; how information is shared with the public; and the

public’s ability to change institutional practices and adapt to climate change and other

changes beyond their control. Accordingly, the participants discussed and described the

overarching theme of effectiveness, as the factors or conditions that can lead to the

success or failure of public participation in Los Angeles water resources management,

which includes the following three subthemes:

• cost and incentives,

• information, and

• changes in institutional practices.

Out of the three subthemes, only institutional practices is further broken up into

category themes, showing the participants’ consensus that changing the institutional

practices is key to effective public participation and engagement, yet the most challenging

and difficult for the public to achieve.

Cost and Incentives. Participants discussed the subtheme of cost, including

available financial resources, financial incentives, and regulatory incentives as key to the

effectiveness of public participation in Los Angeles water resources management. In

agreement, participant P6 shared that “there is always a challenge with funding and that

many times, emphasis is not placed on funding nature-based solutions, so, getting the

funding to do multi-benefit water projects, is going to be key.” In support, Participant P15

shared that current water rights and water pricing make it difficult to implement a more

progressive water policy and incentivizes more water reuse and conservation. On the

importance of having resources and wherewithal to engage and participate,

Participant P14 shared,

“providing supporting resources to those who could not participate otherwise and

providing them with incentives would increase their chances of participating and

sustaining their participation over the long term, as well as increase awareness

and empowerment among other disadvantaged would-be participants.”

Participants also discussed that public participation, engagement, and outreach are

limited because water agencies do not have all the necessary resources including

regulatory and financial incentives. In support of this assertion, Participant P13 shared

that “most agencies are not going much beyond the public engagement defined by status,

which is expected, because it is expensive to undertake broader initiatives.” In agreement

that incentives are needed, Participant P18 shared,

“the water agencies are conducting public participation and outreach based on

how the regulations are constructed and that the agencies are limited by how

much resources they have to be able to use all possible avenues to reach the

public.”

In agreement, Participant P1 shared, the agencies cannot develop water management

plans without “anything in there in terms of how to pay to build it. You cannot

have a wishful plan; you must figure out how to pay for it. There should have

been a public private partnership

or some engagements that were done there to create and develop this master plan

and implement it.”

Also, in agreement, Participant P2 shared,

“all the major achievements, in the last few years, including the passage of the

Safe Clean Water Program (Measure W) by LA County voters, which was the

most recent achievement, were results of effective public participation. People

figured out how to support and fund the programs.”

Additionally, Participant P2 shared,

“With that passage of that measure, we can fund projects to capture stormwater,

not just for water quality, but for water supply, as well as for flooding benefits in

decreasing flooding. So, there is going to be a lot of tangible results from that

funding measure.”

In conclusion, public participation and engagement are not just setting public

goals, agendas, priorities, or developing plans, programs, and projects; but also figuring

out how to bring them to fruition, how to fund them. So, cost or funding resources and

incentives are critical to an effective public participation outcome. It takes public

participation and engagement to develop community goals, plans, priorities, and funding

for implementation, without which public participation is not effective.

Information. The participants discussed that information is key to the

effectiveness of public participation in Los Angeles water resources management. It

depends on how the information is presented and shared with the public and the

knowledge and awareness of the public participants. In agreement, Participant P18

shared,

“the information is the key, but that the information is only as good as it states or

conveys the basis by which and on which that information is developed, and as

good as the knowledge and awareness of the persons who have participated.

However, the idea of bringing that information to the public is still a good thing

because it still makes the public also aware, so, then the public can do their

homework of educating themselves, become more familiar with the issues of

concern, ask questions that are important to them, and seek the answers to their

satisfaction.”

According to Participant P18, public participation makes a difference, but it also

depends on how the planners present the information to the public. “In the last

century, even with public participation, the planners brought information to the

public to examine that involved, identifying water supplies that were available

elsewhere, and bringing the water to Los Angeles was the planners’

preoccupation at that time. The planners prevailed with little or no restriction in

bringing that water to Los Angeles because it meant immense economic growth

for Los Angeles, and the public was not able to stop them, even if they tried.”

Further, Participant P18 shared,

“it is good to have public participation, hopefully ultimately that leads to what

the community wants, but that the danger or the balance remains how much

involvement of people takes place, how to engage the public meaningfully, and

how the issues are framed or should be framed by the planners and water

agencies. Ultimately, the effectiveness of public participation in Los Angeles

water resources planning and management depends on how the information is

framed and who is at the table and how powerful is the opposition.”

Changes in Institutional Practices. The participants shared that institutional

practices are key factors determining the effectiveness of public participation and

engagement in Los Angeles water resources management. As a result, the participants

took the time to discuss it in much more depth than any of the other two subthemes of the

overarching theme of effectiveness. To better understand this key aspect of the

overarching theme of effectiveness, the participants discussed the following nine

categories or aspects of changes in institutional practices, namely:

• planning and governance changes,

• changing the top-down institutional approach,

• public perception of water agencies’ outreach approach,

• water agency managers’ perception of their outreach approach,

• water agencies listening with understanding,

• fully engaged process with influencers and elected representatives’ leadership,

• changes in water agencies bureaucratic practices,

• accountability and engagement through a legal framework, and

• change water agencies expect from the public.

Planning and Governance Changes. According to the participants, to be

effective, the public is requesting significant institutional changes in Los Angeles water

resources management, including the following:

• changes in planning for land use and water infrastructure development;

• restructuring governance for land use planning and water resources management;

• considering the environment and public as key stakeholders, in decision-making

processes, not as afterthoughts; and

• a return to the democratic ideal of public engagement through the elected

representatives to ensure no one and no community is left out.

According to the participants, returning to the democratic ideal of public

engagement through the elected representatives will reinvigorate the balance created

during the progressive era, when:

• President Woodrow Wilson founded public administration as that which

administers,

• the elected representatives were viewed as those who represent all constituents

and retains authority, and

• the public was viewed as those who retain the power to demand accountability and

improved service delivery to meet the present and the future needs of the

community – sustainability.

As evidence that the participants would want a return to the democratic ideal of

public engagement through the elected representatives, Participant P14 shared that “we

need to hold our elected representatives accountable, and water has to be one of the things

that they care about.” Additionally, Participant P14 shared that “the way to remove

elected officials is through people's power.” The participants discussed the need to change

land use planning and how cities are developed. Participant P15 shared that “to be a water

person, you have to work on land use planning.” Also, Participant P4 shared that

“ultimately, unless you change the structure of these institutions and the leaders, then we

are not going to change the mindset and the way we develop our cities in order to meet

the challenge of climate change.”

Changing the Institutional Top-Down Approach. The effectiveness of public

participation depends on many things: the public’s perspective or opinion of how the

agencies, particularly the policymakers, view or treat them in a sort of spectrum

continuum. If the public perception pendulum swings toward being treated by the

agencies and policymakers as their ultimate employers, which they are, then it is likely

that public engagement will be effective and satisfying to all concerned. Conversely,

suppose the public perception pendulum swings toward being treated as an afterthought

or necessity to meet statutory obligations, let alone being treated condescendingly as if

uneducated and less privileged. In that case, public participation and engagement will

suffer and be correspondingly less effective and less satisfying for all concerned,

including the environment. It is a behavioral issue on both the parts of all concerned.

However, the good news is that the agencies and policy makers are beginning to listen,

and signs of successful outcomes of public participation in Los Angeles water resources

management are emerging and expected to grow as all sides show more willingness to

work collaboratively with mutual understanding, trust, and goal of serving the public

needs in the most holistic, integrated, yet balanced manner. Participant P3 shared,

“they should care deeply about the people they serve and those from where Los

Angeles gets its water supply. I am a public servant. That is what I do for my

profession, and I take that seriously. I am not speaking about my agency; this is

just my personal view, but as an agency, we should, that should be our highest

goal, because that is what we get paid to do, to serve the community.”

Public Perception of Water Agencies’ Outreach Approach. The participants

shared that the public is desiring and requesting a change in water agencies outreach

approach, from top-down, inside-out paradigm that is not transparent, to an outreach

approach that recognizes the public as an equal partner, who knows a lot more about the

community needs and priorities. The participants discussed that the community is

clamoring for a water agencies outreach mindset that goes beyond the call of duty,

though it may cost more. According to Participants P4 and P5, water agencies’ current

outreach approach assumes they are doing the important work, while the public is not an

equal partner. So they invite the public to participate in something, answer some pre-

designed questions that they have already skewed to go in a certain direction; and

pretend to listen, but will ultimately do what they wanted to do in the first place, unless,

of course, it is a strong community that is going to use an elected official to sit on the

agency and make them do something they did not intend to do, or maybe sue them.

According to Participant P4,

“unless we get to a more participatory process that engages collaboratively from

day one, that encourages the generation of ideas and takes them seriously that

provides meaningful pathways for participation in design, implementation, and

stewardship, in the projects, we are getting nowhere.”

Participants P4, P5, and P6 discussed, the current outreach approach of water agencies is

still a top-down paradigm that allows for communities to begin to participate in a

design process, once the agencies have determined an area they want to work in,

and once they have got to maybe 70% design. Then they will have community

input, which they may or may not take. Participant 4 shared that “usually, they are

like, oh, well, you do not understand engineering. That cannot happen.

Furthermore, that is about where we are right now, and that is where we have been

stuck for a very long time. I do not know how to break out of it, but, again, it ties

back to how we work now, inside outside. The public is terrifying. Nature is

terrifying. My job is to control things. We work as Engineers. Engineers’ rule. We

are above biologists. We (agencies) may take their (public) consultation because

we are now required to, but we ultimately know best. The public would be better

served through an integrative, multi-disciplinary, multi-sector including the

community, collaborative, generative, democratic, fully engaged process.”

The participants shared that they wanted the agencies' outreach approach to be

integrative, collaborative, multi-sector that includes the community, democratic, and fully

engaged process.

Water Agency Managers’ Perception of Their Outreach Approach. In support of

the assertion that water agencies outreach approach is limited and can be improved,

Participants P8, P13, and P18 shared that water agencies are not outreaching beyond the

limitation of regulatory statutes and available financial resources. Participant P8 shared

that “to comply with California Environmental Policy Act (CEQA) and National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), you can probably do a minimal effort and you will not

violate CEQA and NEPA from a public engagement perspective.” In pointing out some of

the challenges, Participant P11 shared,

“a long-term program to make a change does require more engaging with the

public, to point them in the right direction, because the public, wants something

done, but they do not understand the challenges for the infrastructure or the

investment that's required to get it done. We can hear information, inform the

public, and respond to guide them. Furthermore, that is maybe what a bureaucracy

or an agency like the government can do to help get to some programs that are

getting implemented.”

Participant P18 shared,

“public participation can be more effective if the public is informed of the

consequences of their decision or activity. The whole idea of going to them is to

make them aware of what they may not have already known. They may not even

be aware of the experts in those areas proposing those issues. However, by

discussing with the public, they can become more aware and gain better

knowledge and insights. And then, relate that to their circumstances, and be able

to try to see what are the best outcomes for the community as a whole.”

Also, Participant P18 shared, “So it becomes how the information is framed and who is at

the table and how powerful that opposition is.” To point out how the agencies should care

and listen to the community, Participant 17 shared,

“They should care a lot. If the people you serve have a concern, your

responsibility is to listen, and have responsibilities to address that concern.

Furthermore, by the way, there is no little concern. Every concern is valuable and

important.”

Participant P3 shared,

“an agency has to have a strong desire to do the project, establish the political

capital, to get those forces behind them. Then once you do that and get that

momentum going, the next step would be getting the public on board.”

Further, Participant P3 shared,

“you just have to get people that need to be informed. Your average person does

not even know where their water comes from; people take water for granted. They

turn on the tap, flush the toilet, and that is pretty much it. And when it is not

available to them, then it is an issue. But I think people are not aware. So, I think

people would willingly participate and get involved if they are aware of what is

happening with their water and if there is a particular project that has been

planned or developed about the safety of the water and things like that.”

Participant P8 shared, “people also have to choose to engage. Individuals have to

choose to engage.” Participant P3 shared, “So, I guess the route, then, would be,

you have to target community leaders, who could then disseminate that

information, throughout the community.”

Water Agencies Listening With Understanding. The agencies might be showing

signs of beginning to hear the public and understand some of the things the public is

requesting, including avoiding past mistakes through increased public participation and

more meaningful engagement of the public. For example, Participants P13 shared, “We

should expect that we will learn things we did not already know, input that will make our

projects better. We should not be “selling” to them. We are learning from them. In my

experience, there are always insights to learn from stakeholders. Furthermore, we often

do not know what is on the ground, factors we cannot see in aerial photographs or

topographical maps. There is just no substitute for our people on the ground. It helps us

avoid mistakes.”

To show that water agencies are listening, refocusing their message and raising

awareness, Participant P1 shared,

“So, the water agencies depleted the groundwater aquifers instead of recharging it.

It probably would not have even been an issue, because when you have had an

abundance of cheap imported water, it is not an issue. However, once it becomes

rationed, most people fight for their portion of water when there is not enough to

go around. So, these water agencies now are having to refocus their message to

conservation and sustainability, and that is, in turn, raising awareness.”

To show that water agencies are listening and providing comfort to the community,

Participant P8 shared,

“it is going to be at a higher-level treatment because we also felt that, even though

that technology was good and the water was good quality and met requirements,

that we would add a level of comfort because that was important for the

community. We would add a treatment level to make sure that the community was

more comfortable with the project. So that was also shared in the process, and it

was all because of the Recycled Water Advisory Group.”

Fully Engaged Process With Influencers and Elected Representative

Leadership. The participants discussed that the public is requesting a fully engaged

process approach that is collaborative, integrated,, multi-sector including the community,

democratic, generative, and beyond that expected by the law and regulations, though that

may cost more. The participants discussed that public is expressing renewed interest in

the representative democratic process of the elected representatives representing the

broader community and leading the charge to achieve the fully engaged process approach

for addressing community needs or be held accountable by the public. Simultaneously,

the participants discussed that the public is also expressing renewed interest in the water

agencies providing their technical expertise in a collaborative approach that utilizes the

influencers (local community trusted activists, elected officials, or NGOs) to reach and

engage the community. Accordingly, Participant P11 shared,

“do we have to use the public engagement model that Orange County Water

District used for greater engagement, the most perfect model which they used for

their Groundwater Replenishment System or GWRS? They targeted those most

interested, the thought and public opinion leaders in their area. The most effective

way is to identify the most important influencers, whether its public opinion

leaders, thought leaders, trusted local activists, elected officials, NGOs, or local

religious leaders. Target those because they influence, they have the population,

and you’ll have the multiplier effect.”

Participant P8 shared,

“then you have city leadership, like your elected leaders, who would hold

agencies' feet to the fire if segments of the community are being ignored.

Furthermore, that will be to the extent that these elected leaders are aware and are

concerned about public engagement. Thus, if a community is left out and the

elected leaders do not show up and speak out, then there was a gap there.”

Changes in Water Agencies’ Bureaucratic Practices. The participants discussed

that public engagement effectiveness remains limited so long as water agencies continue

to be bureaucratic - slow to act and not take the quick, bold actions necessary. In support,

Participant P4 shared,

“we have been piloting things for 25 years. They are stuck in pilot mode with the

very things they need to normalize. It would be transparent if the stakes were not

so high. Anything that provides more than one benefit must remain a pilot,

especially if humans or nature are involved. I expect they are just uncomfortable

with things you cannot either construct with concrete and steel or purchase off the

shelf. For instance, green streets: pilot; distributed nature-based projects: pilot;

thousands of dry wells: Where do I order more? Let us put them everywhere

now!” Look, we do not live in a desert in Los Angeles today. Palmdale is in the

Desert, but Los Angeles is not. By the end of the century, we may well be if we do

not act quickly enough and take the kind of big steps we need. Unless we move

away from incrementalism, we will become a desert, though we are not now, and

never have been.”

Additionally, Participant P4 shared,

“embrace incrementalism and you are not serving your people, which is

fundamentally job one. These local agencies are very self-protective and

hyperbureaucratic. When you get up there, it is slower and more ‘hidebound’ than

even the federal government.”

Accountability and Engagement Through Legal Framework. The Public also

uses the legal framework to achieve changes in water agency practices and meet

community needs. Accordingly, Participant P15 shared,

“So, we had regulations, and folks wanted to ignore it. You did not have the tools

to comply or just flouted. Thus, this was how organizations and communities engage. So,

it put us in this legal framework with, you know, it gave us many wins, and it made it

clear that people had to change, or we refine the rules.” Participant P11 shared, “These

seem to summarize the need for collaborative interaction with the agencies, through the

course of settlement agreements.”

Changes Water Agencies Expect From the Public. Los Angeles water resources

agencies expect a willing public, willingness to change behavior to accepting recycled

water, willingness to be educated, and willingness to staying on top of things, when on

the other hand, the public is expecting the agencies to create the capacity in the

community and provide the incentives for these to happen. So, when these expectations

clash, the effectiveness of public engagement efforts suffers. To highlight the water

agency's expectation of the public, Participant P12 shared,

“I think the technology is there, and the engineering is there, but changing the

behavior is what is difficult. You could have low-flow showerheads, low-flow toilets,

things like that, but you need people to think about taking shorter showers if we want to

be more drought tolerant even when we are not in a drought.” However, the agencies

realize some of the roles the public expects of them in reaching out to the community and

providing them with the information to engage more meaningfully and consistently and

figure out how to get more public attention and engagement. To this end, Participant P12

shared,

“we are hoping to get more engagement. I think the challenge is, are people even

interested in engaging with us on this complex subject? How do we make it

interesting to get people in the room whenever we have a public forum? We seem

to depend a lot on nonprofit organizations to assist us in being the ambassadors of

our message that they bring us the audience to learn more about it. Usually, the

only time we get much attention is when something negative happens, and it is in

the news, such as a rate increase, a water main break. Somebody once told me, the

only times people engage with the department is when something is wrong with

the water, water is not coming through their faucet or their bill. These interfaces

are bad first impressions and not ideal for customer service interaction. So, how

100

do we overcome that? How do we make infrastructure investment and

sustainability important to them? How do we inform them that we need their

support? How do we show them where their money is going after they pay their

bills? That is a big deal. Furthermore, we need to get ahead of it; the more

educated or informed our public is, the better we are as a utility. If the public

should want to learn, we need to be ready to provide them that information.”

Participant P8 shared,

“the public needs to become educated about what are the various options. What

are the sustainable outcomes for different sources? What are the impacts related to going

forward on one strategy versus another, or in combination thereof? What are the cost

implications in terms of water rates, sewer rates, things of that nature? What kind of

infrastructure needs to be implemented to make it work? Moreover, through what

communities will that infrastructure traverse and be installed? Overall, it may be that the

agencies are well intended in their expectations, but maybe, it is not being conveyed to

the public that way. Participant P13 shared,

“I have heard so many projects begin with, Oh, we have got to sell this to the

public, as if we are going to meet resistance. We must fight through it and force

this stuff down their throats because we know it is best. We should all begin; I

hear you say the same things are we. We should begin with the notion that if we

get a really good group of public stakeholders willing to spend their time,

listening to us, talk about something that we should expect, that we will learn

something that we did not know before, that will make our project better, but I do

101

not know how many, or how frequently the process begins showing, genuinely,

people believe they are going to learn something from engaging stakeholders.”

Outcomes

One of the three overarching themes that emerged from data analysis is the

“outcomes” of public participation in Los Angeles water resources management. The

participants discussed the overarching theme of outcomes as the evidence or the lack of

evidence of public participation impacts on Los Angeles water resources management.

The participants discussed that public participation outcomes have occurred throughout

the history of Los Angles water resources management, from before the founding of the

City of Los Angeles, also known as the indigenous people’s era, through the eras of

extraction, retraction, and refinements, to the future era of expected outcomes. As a

result, the participants divided their discussion of the overarching theme of outcomes into

three subthemes, namely:

• the extraction era outcomes that included three category themes or sub-eras of the

indigenous peoples, City founding, and hydraulic era that led to imported water

dependency;

• the retraction and refinement era that led to reduction of imported water and

dependency on it; and

• the future era of expected outcomes and uncertainties.

Presented below are the participants’ discussion of the overarching theme of

outcomes, its subthemes, eras, category themes, or sub-era outcomes of public

participation, or the lack of it in Los Angeles water resources management.

102

Extraction Era Outcomes. All the participants discussed and described the

extraction era as when Los Angeles began using or taking water for consumption, from

the following sources:

• surface waters that included the Los Angeles River and springs,

• the groundwater, and

• water exporting areas, approximately 300 or more miles from Los Angeles, including

the Owen Valley in the California Sierra Nevada region, the California Bay Delta, near

San Francisco, and the Colorado River.

However, I have focused this study primarily on the Owen Valley area due to limited time

resources. Participant P11 set the tone for the discussion of the extraction era by sharing

that “what you call the hydraulic era, I call an era of extraction up until around the

1960s.” Then, the participants discussed and described the extraction era outcomes or

aspects of the extraction era outcomes, in terms of sub-eras, based on the type of

extraction and the level or extent of public involvement that occurred during each subera.

The participants discussed and described the following sub-eras:

• the Indigenous Peoples’ era of before the late 17th century, aka before the City

founding era;

• the City founding era, from late 18th century to late 19th century; and

• the hydraulic era of large interregional water infrastructure projects, aka the

aqueducts that brought imported water to Los Angeles, at which time imported

water supply dependency started.

103

The participants discussed that the hydraulic era began in the late 19th century and

ended in the late 1960s to the early 1970s; and was also known as the William

Mulholland era, named after the first head of the Los Angeles Water Department. William

Mulholland was hired by the then Los Angeles Mayor Fred Eaton. The following

summarizes what some participants shared about the level of public participation during

each sub-era of the extraction era, as supported by some of the participants’ quotes.

The Indigenous Peoples’ Era. The participants used other names to describe this

era, such as the native American era, tribal communities’ era, the early stages, before the

city formation era, etc. In setting the tone for this discussion, Participant P9 shared, “you

want to reach before city's formation into what the landscape was. Like when tribal

communities inhabited it, there were large communities of people living with the native

hydrology of the region as sufficient to their needs before colonization. I think

acknowledging this truth would be beneficial.”

Also, Participant P9 discussed, “the phases that you had already called out show a move

away from and now back towards our relationship with sort of sustainable hydrology that

existed prior, when there was only like a million people living here.” Additionally,

Participant P9 shared,

“the early history of development in our region that led to the imported water

being considered both to make a ton of money, but also to grow the region was

the overuse of the natural hydrology; failure to understand the limits of the natural

hydrology by the early settlement that was Spanish and Mexican American.”

The participants discussed this sub-era as when the indigenous peoples lived in

the area, before everyone else arrived, through the founding of the City of Los Angeles, in

104

the late 18th century. Based on participants’ perceptions, the indigenous people have

continued to live in the area beyond this time in history. However, now with the arrival of

others, the level or extent of water extraction and usage began to change, and so did the

natural hydrology of the area, which is an outcome or result of public participation or the

lack of it. In discussing the condition before the arrival of others, the participants

described the indigenous people as having lived in harmonious relationship with the

land, natural hydrology and ecosystem, because they were connected to the land and with

nature. They knew where and how to live on land and with nature. They were sufficiently

supplied by water from the Los Angeles River. In agreement, Participant P16 shared,

“they have the history of interactions and relationships with water and the springs,

and many of their words are based on nature, water related words. We have been

environmentalists going back to native American times. We grew up with the

environment being very important.”

In agreement, Participant P4 shared, “It is like indigenous knowledge, where to live, how

to live on the land. Honestly, we are scrambling right now. We need indigenous

knowledge because frankly that is the only way we are going to survive.” In support,

Participant P14 shared,

“the indigenous people set up around things like the waterways and the river.

However, they did it in a way that the later settlers did not understand that then

they disconnected themselves from the very thing they had originally wanted to

connect to.”

In agreement, Participant P17 shared,

105

“Los Angeles had sufficient water in the basin in the 1700s and 1800s to support

around 45 small Gabrielino villages scattered throughout the basin. They would

get their water from the flowing waters of the Los Angeles River the source of the

river was the aquifer under the San Fernando Valley that is supplied with water

from the surrounding mountains. Entrepreneurs would transport water in water

barrels to resident’s homes and sell them to residents. Fred Eaton who ran the Los

Angeles Water Company started constructing diches or zanjas to deliver water

from the River to the City. William Mulholland was an Irish immigrant who

began his career in 1878 as Deputy Zanjero of the old Los Angeles Water

Company and in 1886 was named Zanjero. He had no formal training as an

engineer. In 1902 the Los Angeles Water Co. was bought out by the City of Los

Angeles and became the Bureau of Water Works and Supply. The name was

changed to LADWP in 1920. As Los Angeles grew, the City needed more water,

so the residents turned to underground resources, but the City was still growing

and needed more water and needed a new supply. So, they turned to Owens

Valley.”

The City Founding Era. The participants described public participation during

the City founding era, from the late 1700s, when the City was founded through the late

1800s, to the early 1900s, as when Los Angeles inhabitants did the following:

• exhausted water supply from the Los Angeles River;

• exhausted or over-pumped out the local groundwater sources;

• established the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP);

106

• began the search for additional water supply from outside the Los Angeles region,

particularly from the Owens Valley, approximately 300 miles from Los Angeles that

was begun by Eaton, Mulholland, and other City of Los Angeles “fathers;” and •

laid the foundation for two important outcomes of the extraction era, the Los

Angeles dependence on imported water supply, and a long conflict with water

exporting communities of the Owens Valley that would later contribute to the

retraction or the reduction of Los Angeles ability to import as much water from the

Owens Valley as before.

In setting the tone for this discussion, Participant P12 shared, “the LA River could

not sustain the water demand from the population growth, in the early 1900s.” However,

in contrast, Participant P4 shared that “when we stole Owens Valley’s water, we had

enough for about 20 more years of projected growth. Stealing Owens Valley’s water and

channelizing our waterways are what facilitated such rapid growth.’’

Also, participants discussed and described public participation during this era in

the form of judicial review and court decisions, particularly regarding the Pueblo water

rights, groundwater pumping adjudications, etc. Participant P14 shared,

“go back to start with the Native American era. You start from that perspective,

and then you can talk about Pueblo rights; you have the seventies when there was

an adjudication of the basin here in LA that set the tone for water rights. That was

a big judgment. Moreover, when you take it back to the Native American history

and their displacement because of water, then you can talk about the water

coming from the Owens Valley and Mono lake basin; and how we were able to

107

grow as a city because of the water that was imported, but also the impacts that it

had on the native people, the Shoshone Paiute Tribe in the Owens Valley, and the

mono basin.”

The participants discussed that Eaton and other City of Los Angeles fathers

deceived the people of Owens Valley to avoid their opposition to taking their water down

to Los Angeles, one of the obvious signs of lack of public participation. In discussing

another sign of limited public participation, Participant P12 shared,

“there was another group of people that were very opposed to this project. It was

kept under wraps and secret by Fred Eaton, Mulholland, and others. These were

the people up in the Owens Valley in Inyo County areas. They did not realize that

the water rights Fred Eaton bought up were intended to send water to the City of

Los Angeles, until after a lot of the approvals, even with the US Congress, a lot

of the funding for it was in play.”

The Hydraulic Era. The participants also called this era by other names, such as

the imported water era or the William Mulholland era, because he was key to importing

water and bringing it to Los Angeles from the Owens Valley, almost 300 miles away,

through the Los Angeles Aqueduct that he was key in constructing, in 1913 (LADWP

2013). Participant P13 shared,

“we did have a sort of ‘William Mulholland’ era. “It was a period when we were

very confident in civil engineering and very willing to go out wherever we had to

go to find the cleanest water and do what the Romans did, bring it to where it was

needed.”

108

The participants shared that public participation was limited during the hydraulic era and

City fathers made efforts to control nature by building the aqueducts for importing water

and constructing 51 miles of concrete conduit for flood control that channeled the Los

Angeles River to the ocean. Participant P4 shared,

“there were people on the social side of things who spoke up about the social

impacts to our communities, but there was a much greater acceptance of the kind

of social engineering that was the display of power that was going on, and

concrete was celebrated because it is like the age of engineering.”

Participant P17 shared, “what we created was the most robust infrastructure in the world

for water delivery.” Participant P3 shared, “Los Angeles would not be Los Angeles as it is

today, without the three major aqueducts that bring water into Southern California.”

Participant P11 shared, “Before 1970, 4 aqueducts were built: Both Los Angeles

Aqueducts, Colorado River Aqueduct, and the CA State Water Project aqueduct. Since

this era, no additional aqueducts have been built.”

All the participants talked about the lack of public participation and consideration

for the environment, during the hydraulic era, except for the passage of the bond measure

that funded the construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, which the community voted to

pass. However, according to Participant P4,

“the vote was won through propaganda. Fred Eaton and other powers who saw

profit in expanding the City, led a propaganda campaign saying we were out of

water and residents needed to tax themselves to build the aqueduct. Residents

did.”

109

Participant P12 shared, “public participation during that early stage through the hydraulic

era may have been non-existent.” Participant P11 shared, public participation was

minimal during the extraction era.” Participant P13 shared, the public was not involved in

the decision-making process, but public support was evident. When the public became

aware, that a new supply was arriving in Los Angeles, there were roughly 40,000 people

gathered to see and celebrate the first delivery. Generally, there was public support for

building this first generation of infrastructure. The public supported it by voting for the

bond measures to fund investments from property tax revenues. Their votes to tax

themselves was a tangible sign of public support. At that time, there was not an

expectation that the public was going to participate in making decisions regarding how

things should be done. That was never dreamed of.”

Additionally, Participant P13 shared,

“Citizens were not going to tell engineers where something should be located, or

whether the engineering solutions were right or wrong. Nevertheless, you had

broad public awareness, newspaper reporting, and editorials, all indicating limited

local opposition and significant public support. These projects were very visible

at that time, and synonymous with popular ideas of ‘progress’.”

In contrast, Participant P11 shared, “the question is support versus participation. You

probably guessed it, and they were not participating in those processes. Support was not

participation. There were 40,000 people and that is great participation, but it is not a

participation in the way they asked the public” To clarify, Participant P13 shared, “I

take your point, but I think when you have that kind of public support, the public are

110

participating as supporters of a project. We are not looking for most stakeholders to do

much relative to making decisions. We look for them to provide their preferences and

other input, and primarily to offer their support.

We’re splitting hairs.”

However, in maintaining a contrary position, Participant P11 shared, “I think unless we

are going to engage them actively. I do not think that has occurred. That is the difference

between engaging them. I do not think that happened here.” In support, Participant P8

shared, “it comes across to me as a top-down approach at its finest. The public input

being limited to the vote for the water bond.” Also, in support, Participant P4 shared,

“the newspaper owners had a financial interest in the aqueduct, by the way, and

engineered the whole propaganda campaign. The public opposed the project in

local newspaper opinion sections and even tried to obstruct or destroy the

construction of the aqueduct but was not successful in stopping it, which confirms

what the other participants were saying that the voices of the community were not

heard or listened to during this era.”

Also, Participant P4 shared,

“public participation back in the early stages, based on my reading the record was

not that nobody commented. They mostly commented through writing letters to

the newspapers' editor, or some people would show up at meetings. Furthermore,

these things are documented, and some people put forth alternative proposals. It

was maybe less robust, but there were a lot fewer people around back then. There

are some pretty great examples in the record, people proposing alternatives to the

111

channelization of the Los Angeles River and the building of the Aqueduct. But

they still channelized the River, even though that the chief State and County

Engineers had argued against it.”

In agreement with other participants that there was little or no consideration for the voices

of the community or the environment, Participant P5 shared, “Back then, both

environmental impacts and impacts to poor communities were not even a consideration.”

Also, in agreement, Participant P8 shared,

“there was very little public engagement in those early days, as city fathers knew

best. Thus, you have a legacy of that type of atmosphere, continuing from one

generation of city government to the next and the next. It is the City ‘Fathers’

know the best approach.”

However, in explaining the possible reasons for the limited consideration of public

engagement and the environment during the hydraulic era, Participants P9 and P12 shared

the following. Participant P9 shared,

“public participation during the early stages, city founding through the 1950s, was

hard. It was complicated because there was a different understanding of what the

public was. For most of that period, wealthy White men counted as public, and

everyone else did not count, and they were very strongly involved because the

Los Angeles aqueduct was a public effort to benefit private capital. The way we

understand the role of government and what, and who is the public, is different

now than what it was then. So, by our standards, no, the public was not involved,

but by their standards, perhaps, it was.”

112

Participant 12 shared,

“Because the wisdom of the time was the greatest good for the greatest number of

people. Moreover, no environmental impact was considered. There were no

conflict-of-interest regulations to prevent individuals from enriching themselves,

making money, and selling water to the city. So, it was a much different period.”

Also, Participant P12 shared,

“There was much support to bring water to the City of LA because the alternatives

were going to be more expensive, and there was not another source of water. The

LA River could not sustain the population growth in the early 1900s.”

Additionally, Participant P12 shared,

“so, yes, there was support, especially from a local sense; it was a different

mindset back then. They did not need support. They did not need the public per se

for anything. In the best interest of the greater community or, the greater good,

those that had power were able to influence politicians, at least to build the

infrastructure.”

In support of Participant P12’s conclusion above, Participant P13 shared,

“That is a good addition to this story because it goes to the total exploitation

mentality, where no attention is paid to the long-term agricultural interests in the

Owens Valley. The city, at that time, likely felt very justified in acquiring that land

and those water rights.”

Also, Participant P13 shared, “those purchases were made clandestinely, because if they

had tried to negotiate openly, it may never have happened.”

113

In summing up the discussion on the limited consideration of the community and

the environment during the hydraulic era, Participant P2 shared,

“from what I know about LA's history of public participation, in the beginning,

there was a lot of decision making that was made by policymakers and agency

officials without involving the public, of course, always were with the greater

good in mind. However, it was not necessarily customary to include the public in

decision making. It was more up to the engineers and the public officials to make

those decisions based on their data. So, I think a lot has changed from that time.

In that, over the years, we have involved the public, there have been

neighborhood councils formed and has increased participation, all the way to

present time.”

Retraction and Refinement Era Outcomes. The participants discussed the

Retraction and Refinement Era as the era of lessening dependence on imported water

supply into the Los Angeles region by the Environmental Movements Era related public

activism and advocacy, through the courts, and the regulatory agencies; and as the era of

implementation of refining initiatives such as water reuse and recycling; and yet as an era

of continued but streamlined imported water supply dependency. The participants

described the retraction and refinement era as the outcome of the nature,

environmentalists, and public push back to the excesses of the extraction era, especially

the hydraulic era engineers, public administrators, and policymakers; and as an era the

push back led to the cut back of the amount of water that Los Angeles can import from

Owens Valley and other regions. The participants described it as an era of addressing the

social and environmental impacts of decades of water withdrawal and export to Los

114

Angeles, which started during the hydraulic era. In agreement, Participants P1, P8, P11,

P17 discussed the retraction era in the following manner. Participant P1 shared, “So,

there has not been much transparency when it comes to water. As a result, the

City is spending a billion dollars more on infrastructure up in the Owens Valley

to address fugitive dust emissions because of all the water taken out of the lake.”

In agreement, Participant P8 shared,

“fast forward to 2020, much of the water that we counted on from the Owens

Valley, now stays in Owens Valley, specifically, because of the Hydraulic Era activities.

So that is a way of public engagement through the courts and the regulatory agencies that

are coming to bear against the water agencies.” Participant P11 shared that “up until

1970 we were in an era of extraction, meaning imported water diversions into urban areas

flourished without much consequence or consideration to the environment – thus the era

of extraction.” Additionally, Participant

P11shared,

“beginning around 1970 the consultation/mitigation of these actions to the

environment, as constituted by new laws, now had to be considered which began

the era of retraction or maybe the era of refinement as it relates to importing

water…”

Participant P17 shared, “the City, of course, built the system. Unfortunately, at that time,

we were not sophisticated in our evaluation of environmental impacts, but overtime we

learned more and started adjusting to addressing the environmental impacts.”

The eleven category themes of the retraction and refinement era outcomes

discussed by the participants are presented below, and they include the following:

115

• The retraction era.

• The refinement era.

• The environmental movement era.

• The environmental movement related public activism and advocacy.

• The climate change factor.

• The environmental movement era provided legal footing for local activism and

advocacy.

• The Owens Valley, Mono Basin, Bay Delta activism and advocacy.

• The Los Angeles area activism and advocacy.

• The outcomes of reactions to the environmental movement era.

• The imported water dependency era.

• The sample-specific outcomes of the retraction and refinement era.

The Retraction Era Outcomes. The participants discussed the retraction era

category theme as a key component of public participation and engagement in Los

Angeles water resources management. The participants discussed it as the period when

Los Angeles had to reduce the amount of water being imported and began to lessen

dependency on imported water supply by seeking out sustainable alternatives and

exploring local options. Participants P10, P11, P12, and P13 discussed how Los Angeles

lost a significant amount of water supply to activism and advocacy by the residents of the

impacted communities through the courts and rooted in the environmental movement era

legislations and agencies. According to Participants P11, We did not see the material

effects of these new environmental laws era of the 1970s on imported water diversions

until the early 1990s and the following were key outcomes of public engagement and

116

activism during the retraction era that would change how Los Angeles manages water

resources:

• The 1960s and 1970s Environmental Movement Era, in about the time of the

Civil Rights Movement and preceded by the Women’s movement and the

Progressive Era, produced the key legislations and agencies that were key to

the reduction of Los Angeles’ ability to import as much water as before. The

key legislations were the 1963 Federal Clean Air Act and the Federal 1973

Endangered Species Act. The key agencies were the United States

Environmental Protection Agency, the California Environmental Protection

Agency, and the California State Water Resources Control Board.

• The 1974 establishment of the Great Basin Unified Air Quality District, a Joint

Power Authority/Agency (JPA), was the start of the air quality movement of

Owens Lake.

• In 1975, David Gaines, the founder of the Mono Lake Committee, started the

Mono Basin movement. The 1963 Federal Clean Air Act was key to the

Owens Lake air quality issues and Mono Basin related to retraction of

imported water supplies for the Los Angeles region.

• In 1983 California Supreme Court ordered public trust doctrine towards the water

rights and diversion, to Los Angeles, from the Mono Basin. As a result, the State

Water Resources Control Board assigned diversions for the Mono Basin based on

air quality, and Los Angeles lost two-thirds of its water supply for the Mono

Basin. Los Angeles lost ~60,000-acre feet of water and has spent one to two

117

billion dollars trying to figure out alternative ways to keep the dust down -

implementing dust mitigation measures.

• In ~2012, Judge Wanger applied the Federal Endangered Species Act to the

California Bay Delta (delta smelt) and ordered less water diversion to restore

the delta smelt. The Judge Wanger decision by itself was a quick one stroke of

the pen that led to the reduction of approximately 33% of the water that Los

Angeles used to import from the California Bay Delta region.

Also, Participant P11 shared, to every one of those environmental issues and related

local public engagement, advocacy, and activisms through the courts and the

regulatory authorities, Los

Angeles lost. Furthermore, to every one of those sources of water, the Los

Angeles region lost full access to the amount of water it used to import from the

area, hence, the retraction era and its outcomes.

In describing the retraction era outcomes, Participant P8 shared,

“there were certain challenges, legal challenges, to the environmental impacts

related to water exports. There were fish kills, impacts to wildlife, and all these

kinds of things. And so there began to be more of an engagement through the

legal framework, and through the regulatory framework, in terms of saying, OK,

City fathers, you cannot just do what is best for the public. You must address

these impacts that are occurring because of your water-gathering activities. Thus,

these have been monumental outcomes that have shifted the amount of water that,

in our case in Los Angeles has been able to harvest and bring to Los Angeles.”

118

Also, in describing the retraction era outcomes, Participant P9 shared, the retraction era

“was an effort to kind of deal with the fact that the natural hydrology was both of

being overwhelmed by the city and overwhelming the city. On the water supply

side, the city was overwhelming the natural hydrology. On

the flood side, the natural hydrology was overwhelming, the city. That was the

flooding that would bury the city every couple of decades or so,” thus further

describing the retraction era.

However, Participant P4 shared,

“regarding the flooding statement, Los Angeles saw major flood events in 1825,

1862, 1914, 1933 & 1938, so not exactly every 20 years. Of course, the insane

1862 flood had a statewide impact, but in the 1800s there wasn't much of a City to

bury and based on the County Engineer's report of 1914, floods were by and large

still considered natural and overall beneficial. Most of the impacts from flood

events in the 1900s was to poorly designed bridges and some ill-conceived

development. Most of the mortalities from the '38 flood were from one location

and human error up at Big Tujunga Dam played a role in the damage. Did waters

rise? Yes. Was the city buried? Hardly. Los Angeles never suffered nearly the kind

of flood damage that places like the Midwest and the Carolinas have (not to

mention dozens of other places around the globe). And we could have

implemented the Olmsted Plan & other measures to restrict development in

floodplains. But no. Easier to justify all that concrete and the waste of our local

water resources by calling it catastrophic."

119

Refinement Era Outcomes. Participants discussed the category theme of the

refinement era as one of the key components of public participation and engagement in

Los Angeles water resources management. The participants defined the Refinement Era

as when several water resources initiatives were taken or began and continues to the

present to compensate for the lost amount of imported water that occurred during the

Retraction Era – hence a subset of the Retraction Era. Some of the initiatives that the

participants discussed include water rationing, water conservation, stormwater

management, and tiered water billing rate structure, reuse, storage, recycling, and

groundwater recharge, integrated resources planning and adaptive management. In

describing one of the key components of the refinement era that have resulted in Los

Angeles using less water, Participant P11 shared,

“1990 or maybe 1991 was the year that Metropolitan Water District voted to

ration water and that was when the conservation era really began, so the era of

conservation was a subset of the era of retractions. That is when we have low

flow toilets, low flow showerheads, eventually behavior change, and we have

evolved substantially since then.”

In agreement, Participant P8 shared,

“Angelinos have saved water through their behavior by using low flow devices,

low flush toilets, and in the more recent years, reducing the need to irrigate

outdoors, switching from water-intensive landscaping to more water-efficient

landscaping. These are all choices that consumers have made, and it has resulted

in Los Angeles's ability to use less water today, even though there are a million

120

more people in the city of Los Angeles. The public perception issues still need to

be addressed, but Los Angeles sees, in certain venues, that the public has a little

bit more receptiveness to the idea of using recycled water for drinking water

purposes than in the 1990s.

As a result, Participant P8 shared that “the City of Los Angeles is continuing the strategy

of developing its conservation efforts to the extent that the public is accepting of alternate

sources of drinking water supply.”

Environmental Movement Related Public Activism and Advocacy Outcomes.

The participants discussed the retraction era as starting with the environmental

movement, in the 1960s, towards the end of the hydraulic era, through the 1970s. As a

result, the participant discussed the environmental movement era as a subset of the

retraction and refinement era, therefore, they are discussed interchangeably here, with the

environmental movement being the foundation of the retraction and refinement era. The

environmental regulations and agencies established during the environmental movement

were key in producing the retractions in water supply exports to Los Angeles that

triggered the retraction and refinement era, through public activism and advocacy. The

goal of the retraction era is also the goal of the environmental movement era and that was

to address the externalities or the limited considerations for public participation and

environmental impacts of the hydraulic era large system of interregional water

infrastructure projects that can take a drop of water from hundreds of miles away and

bring it to Los Angeles.

121

The participants described the retraction and refinement era by the following other

names based on how the public participated in the retraction era outcomes, of which

environmental movement era concerns or issues dominated: the environmental movement

era, community activism and advocacy era, the legal framework era, and the

environmental legislation and regulatory agency era. The participants discussed that

increased role of grassroots community coalitions individuals, nonprofits organizations,

and the courts were witnessed and experienced during the retraction and refinement era.

The participants discussed that the era was viewed as the refinement era because of the

many initiatives and programs that were advocated by the public and implemented at the

time, such as water conservation, water recycling, zero wasted water, One Water,

integrated and adaptive management, and the early and continuous consideration of the

residents and the environment as key stakeholders in public decision-making processes

and regulations, not as afterthoughts. Also, the participants described it as an era of

continued but streamlined or retracted imported water dependency, a legacy of the era.

Participants P9 and P11 described the retraction and refinement era’s

environmental movement and public activism and initiatives as the era of environmental,

racial, and gender equity that is a step away from creating human hydrology as was done

during the extraction era.

Environmental Movement Era Outcomes. The participant spoke of the

environmental movement era as the awakening and national environmental awareness era

because of the many national and state environmental agencies created, and legislation

enacted. In agreement, P4 shared,

122

“there was sort of awakening around that time a Republican administration was

the progenitor (founder or originator) of the Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water

Act, Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the US

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA was born of the Nixon

Republican Administration. It was a political move on his part; it was not like a

heartfelt personal kind of thing, but suddenly, it was an unarguably evident that

nature was fighting back against our big push to control nature, and it was

destroying communities’ health. Furthermore, it was visceral. I do not know how

many of you are old enough to know. I grew up here. It was Orange skies. It was

you could not play on the playground; you could not see the hills most days. So,

these were visible, palpable impacts to communities and not only communities of

color.”

In discussing how important the environmental movement was and the many outcomes

achieved, Participant P11 shared,

“It is simply down to environmental movement and climate change. Those two

have materially affected the way we approach water resource planning. It is all

underpinned on to the environmental movement. The environmental movement

started in 1963 with the first real environmental law, the Clean Air Act. Then you

have the (California) 1969 Porter-Cologne Act and the establishment of the State

Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Boards to firmly enhance

regulation of water rights and water quality. Originally, drinking water was not

included, but under the (California Governor) Brown administration, it was

123

moved under the Stated Water Board and changed from the Department of Public

Health, as new to the Division of Drinking Water. In 1970, the California

Environmental Quality Act was first enacted and the National Environmental

Policy Act in the same year. In 1972, the Clean Water Act was established. The

1973 Endangered Species Act and the 1974 formation of the Great Basin Unified

Air Pollution Control District then materially affected Owens Lake diversions.

Discussing the environmental movement era as people feeling poorly represented,

Participant P9 shared,

“the movements of, the 1960s were related to environmental degradation, and of

course the Vietnam war. Like in the United States, much of the activism, much of

the active engagement from the 1960s, really came out of a resistance to that war.

So, no, it was not an example of the people feeling themselves. It was an example

of the people feeling poorly represented. I think what is different today, is that the

problems are not quite so universal. The climate change itself is universal, but the

impacts of climate change are not, in the same way that of air pollution.”

Climate Change Factor. The Participants P10, P11, P12, and P13, discussed that

what has driven and materially changed how Los Angeles water resources are managed is

factoring in climate change on the extraction and retraction eras. Participant P11 shared,

“what is driven is that climate change on top of the eras.” The Los Angeles area

water infrastructure projects were built within the first 50 years of the 20th

Century, from 1900 to 1950. As it turns out, looking at hydrology and comparing

that century’s hydrology to the past 1,200 years showed the 20th Century as the

wettest. So, the Los Angeles water infrastructure projects of the hydraulic were

124

built around, even pre-climate change, wetter climate, than the previous 1,100

years. Now layering climate change on a significantly drier climate and adding

that to the environmental movement and that have materially changed the way

Los Angeles manages water resources.”

Environment Movement Provided Legal Footing for Local Activism and

Advocacy. The participants spoke of the environmental movement era as public activism

and advocacy at the national level that encompassed other movements that provided the

local activism and advocacy with the agencies, legislations, and legal footing to engage.

In agreement, Participant P4 shared,

“there was much involvement, and Sierra Club was born in that moment, as well

Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network, and others as well. There was much

activity, which I think was disbursed amongst much social upheaval that was

going on. It was not as siloed out as it is right now, necessarily. I think in my

growing up, it was part of the larger movement for racial and social justice and

environmental justice. It was all one big thing, and we were not calling it anything

other than just ‘the hippies.’ So that was my experience of growing up.”

Also, in agreement, Participant P5 shared,

“Sierra Club is very well known for their lawsuits and litigations, but that is not

how you want to fight something. Who can fight those things? It is not the

momand-pop stall at all. It must take a huge organization on two sides of those

issues. It is unfortunate that is where we are.”

Owens Valley, Mono Basin, Bay Delta Activism and Advocacy Outcomes.

125

Participants point out that activism and advocacy in the Owens Valley and Mono Lake

Basin, through the regulatory framework and court decisions, have resulted in a

significant reduction in the amount of water that Los Angeles can import from that

region. To illustrate, Participant P11 shared,

“David Gaines, the Mono Lake Committee founder, started the Mono Basin

movement in 1975. The 1963 Federal Clean Air Act was key to the Owens Lake

air quality issues and Mono Basin as it related to retraction of imported water

supplies for LADWP. The air quality issues was about the exceedances and

intervals of PM-10 or particulate matter larger than 10 microns, i.e., dust in the air

because of exposed playa or drying of the lakebed shore. The PM-10 were

regulated because of air quality standards. The1973 Endangered Species Act, was

a critical law, applied to the Bay Delta (delta smelt), by Judge Wanger (~2012),

who ordered less diversion of imported Bay Delta water to Los Angeles, to restore

the delta smelt. In 1974 the Great Basin Unified Air Quality District (Authority)

was established as a joint power authority (JPA), which started the air quality

movement of the Owens Lake. In 1983 California Supreme Court ordered that the

public trust doctrine applied towards the water rights and diversion of LADWP

from the Mono Basin. The order to apply the public trust doctrine ultimately led

to ~ 2/3 reduction in exported water to Los Angeles, from the Mono Basin

(100,000 AFY to ~33,000 AFY).”

To clarify, Participant P11 shared,

126

“to every one of those environmental regulatory laws, you can pinpoint every one

of those sources of water into the Los Angeles region, we lost. Judge Wanger's

(~2012) decision by itself was a quick one stroke of the pen and 33% of water

gone, and that came out of the Endangered Species Act. If you look at Mono

Basin, Los Angeles has lost two-thirds of its supply for Mono Basin based on the

public trust doctrine. That is a force of the California Supreme Court decision in

1983. We lost 60,000-acre feet of water to Los Angeles forever. That caused the

retraction and now adding to it is climate change uncertainty. Los Angeles has

spent one to two billion dollars on the Owens Lake dust mitigation issues,

figuring out alternative ways to keep the dust down.”

In conclusion, P8 shared, “fast forward to 2020, much of the water that we

counted on from the Owens Valley, now stay in Owens Valley specifically because of an

era that you are talking about. So that is a way of public engagement through the courts.

Moreover, the regulatory agencies that are coming to bear against the water agencies.”

Los Angeles Area Activism and Advocacy Outcomes. In discussing the Los

Angele area activism and advocacy outcomes, the participants described it as the

individual, community groups, coalitions, and local nonprofits era, in recognition of the

parts they played in Los Angeles water resources management. Setting the tone for the

discussion, Participant P6 shared,

“Sparks to me, memories of Dorothy Greene, starting in her kitchen, trying to

clean up the Bay, that is, starting with a bunch of really concerned citizens. The

public, at this point, was crying out for those laws that were put into place for

127

Clean Water to be put into effect, and agencies must have to put their money,

where their mouth is and follow these laws. Thus, that gave rise to the consent

decree that forced the Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant to upgrade around that

time. That was big for wastewater.”

The participants shared that participative integrated resources planning, and

adaptive management principles of water resources management thrived during the Los

Angeles local activism and advocacy era of the 1980s through the 2000s and wished they

had continued unadulterated or unaltered. Accordingly, Participant P4 shared,

“the City of Los Angeles Integrated Resources Planning (IRP) for the Wastewater

Program ended a year or so before Dorothy Green passed away in 2006. So, the

IRP set the stage, and then they set it aside, and One Water LA Program is not an

integrated plan, and the county has decidedly gone back in the other direction.”

The successful court outcomes enjoyed by the individuals, grassroots community

organizations, coalitions, and the nonprofits were partly because the environmental

movement era agencies and regulations, such as the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air

Act, gave them the legal footing. In agreement, Participant P4 shared,

“the Clean Water Act, and Clean Air Act gave interested people, legal tools, to

address the issue. So, we had regulations, and folks wanted to ignore them, or did not

have the tools to comply or just flouted. Thus, this was how organizations and

communities engaged. So, it put us in this legal framework. It gave us many wins, and it

made it clear that people had to change, or we continue to refine the rules.” However, the

participants discussed that not all local activism is litigative. So, besides relying on the

128

agencies and legislation of the environmental movement era, local advocacy groups and

nonprofits relied on their membership networks and partnerships with other groups and

coalitions for successful outcomes. In agreement, P6 shared, “We leant a lot on our

membership. We were not as litigative, but we had to run campaigns to spark awareness

and get numbers behind us. When we go to the Water Board, speak on behalf of our

14,000 members, that kind of thing. It means that the demographics of those members did

play a role in kind of how the organization operated also relied on your partnerships we

try to put the scientific basis of the policy recommendations, there was that piece, too.

There was also a big push for numeric standards, new permits, things that you could have

that still carries forward today. That is still something that organizations push for.”

In describing Los Angeles local activism and advocacy, Participant P9 shared, “I look

around the landscape, and wherever I see a nonprofit, I see a government failure.

It is a spot where the government has failed to do something well, so a nonprofit

has grown up to do it instead. From that perspective, came Andy Lipkis and

Dorothy Greene, like that crowd. They come out of sort of a liberation ideology of

the 1960s, and a technical competency, which was not normally outside of

government. It is an interesting moment because they came in, and they pressed.

They pressed from two dimensions. Like the technical, they have the technical

competency and the sense that things could be better, and they went to work on

trying to change the public administration rather than try to change the politics.”

129

Also, Participant P9 asked, “why did the move of that early 1980s technical? Why was it

a technical advocacy? Why was it directed at the public administrators rather than the

elected representatives? I do not know.”

Outcomes of Reactions to the Environmental Movement Era. Participants

discussed the outcomes of reactions to the environmental movement era as disinvesting in

the communities and environment, encouraging individual freedom, and discouraging

public participation. In agreement, Participant P15 shared,

“it was from the 1960s to the 1980s. You certainly have the 1960s (polluted

resources and environmental movement). And then you had sort of the reaction to

the 1960s, which was like the Howard Jarvis taxpayers’ revolt, which led to

Reagan and Reaganomics, and, frankly, were about de-investing in communities,

de-investing in the environment.

Also, the participants discussed the outcomes of reactions to the environmental

movement era as hollowing out of the state and a deepening commitment to Freedom at

the individual level that deemphasized and discouraged the role of public participation. In

agreement, Participant P9 shared,

“Now, there is a debate, the Environmental movement, the women's movement,

the Civil Rights Movement Agenda issues, then what is called the neoliberal era

in the United States. Starting in the late 1970s and then gaining speed during the

1980s, particularly with Reagan's administration, there was a hollowing out of the

state and, a deepening commitment to Freedom at the individual level; you are

130

free. Your liberty is a personal thing that relies on no responsibility to others, and

then if everyone takes care of themselves, everyone will be OK.”

Additionally, Participant P9 shared,

“It deemphasized and discouraged the role of public participation that pushed so

much through in the 1960s and early 1970s. So, it was an intentional act by those

whose power was threatened by a more engaged public to disengage the public as

often as possible.”

Imported Water Dependency Era Outcomes. The participants discussed imported

water and related dependencies as outcomes of public participation or the lack of it in the

Los Angeles water resources management, particularly, during the extraction and

hydraulic eras. The participants discussed the future of imported water dependency and

debated if there is an end in sight or a way forward. In discussing the way forward.

Participant P9 shared,

“as a critical component of our water supply portfolio, we will always use

imported water here. We will be able to use less, or in the years where there is less

available, we will be OK without it. Furthermore, in the years where there is more

available water, we will take it and store it for the dry years. That is the direction

we are heading. We will never give up or stop imported water. We will come to

rely on it.”

The participants shared views on the factors perpetuating imported water dependency,

which they believed that the residents of Los Angeles and all levels of government need

to address, using existing and new technologies., Participant P6 shared, “We have

131

challenges with legacy pollution: huge basins to store water supply in San Fernando

Valley, but they are all polluted and we also have new pollution coming in the form of no

contaminants of emerging concerns.” Participant P3 shared, “there are technological

challenges, in the research and understanding of technology and reuse as an alternative to

imported water. I do not think there are technical challenges, but there might be hurdles in

terms of public acceptance.” P8 shared, “the challenge with reducing our reliance on

imported water is to develop our local resources fully.”

Imported water dependency remains, but is retracting, with emphasis being placed

on local supply sources, water recycling and reuse, addressing legacy pollutions, water

conservation, integrated and adaptive management, sustainability, and resiliency

planning. In this regard, Participant P1 shared,

“the biggest theme that kept coming up throughout the water effort was, why don't

we recycle the water from Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant? Because of the

public pushing for this throughout the years, we committed to recycling 100% of

our wastewater by 2035. Moreover, that is our goal.”

However, Participant P4 shared,

“I'm all for water recycling. Looking forward to advancements in technologies

and regulations so we can get to direct potable reuse. But don't you find it

interesting that people have been pushing for restoration of our waterways just as

long, and that we know that would help preserve our local water resources by

recharging groundwater, and improving water quality and creating park space,

and improving air quality, and cooling communities, and increasing biodiversity,

132

and sequestering carbon, but no one has committed to doing anything about that?

The current plans for (recycling 100% of wastewater at) Hyperion Water

Reclamation Plant are pretty much single purpose and insanely expensive - both

financially and from a carbon accounting perspective. And they will do nothing

for encouraging wiser water use overall. Not to mention the fact that we don't

know enough about how to treat emerging contaminants of concern."

So, participants discussed that the challenge remains the costs and environmental impacts

of implementing the options such as the 100% recycling at Hyperion Water Reclamation

Plant, the tunneling of Bay Delta near San Francisco to Los Angeles, etc. Participant P17

shared,

“the biggest challenge is the cost of a new system that has to be integrated into

our current water treatment and distribution system that is energy intensive.

However, this is a sustainable option that must be pursued for the benefit of the

region.”

Participant P9 shared,

“On the transition to recycling, it is a little bit more attenuated what the public

role is. I mean, in the past, attempts to head this direction have been met with public

resistance for lack of understanding about the safety of recycled water.” In discussing

that these options, though expensive and impact the environment, are sustainable options

that have become more publicly acceptable, particularly, given existing and new

technologies, Participant P2 shared,

133

“for years, we had thought that (100% recycling of our wastewater) may not be

feasible or cost-effective because of how much water involved and the potential

for causing significant environmental disruptions when trying to bring back the

recycled water through the densely developed and populated City to the

customers upstream. However, now with new technologies and increasing public

support and acceptance, the City is looking forward to implementing 100%

recycling of wastewater, under the leadership of the Mayor and his Green New

Deal team.”

To summarize that public engagement in every aspect is needed to lessen imported water

dependency, Participant P2 shared,

“we made sure that they are involved in the communication with the state and the

regulators. They show up at the regulator meetings and make sure that we are

informed about our water use impacts on the communities. We made sure that we

are involved in those solutions to mitigate those impacts, becoming more

involved with regional efforts. Furthermore, that we are doing the most we can to

reduce our dependence on imported water, not just because it benefits us, but

because it benefits their communities where we get our water from.”

Sample Specific Outcomes of Retraction and Refinement Era. Participants

discussed a guided optimism, but a generally positive impression of the outcomes, of

public participation in Los Angeles water resources management. Participant P18 shared,

“public participation plays a role, but even so, it might not have changed the outcome, as

134

much, given the circumstances, at the time, and the public understanding, and their ability

to foresee totally what is beyond their present circumstances.”

The participants discussed the following seven example successful outcomes of

public participation and engagement in Los Angeles water resources management that

occurred during the retraction and refinement era: (a) Measure W – The Safe Clean Water

Program bond measure passage, (b) great streets stormwater program bottom-up

approach, (c) development of One Water concept, (d) successful leadership by elected

representative and other influencers, (e) successful water recycling outreach, and (f)

outcomes of reactions to certain triggers.

Measure W – The Safe Clean Water Program Bond Measure Passage. The

participants discussed that some of the tangible results of the “Measure W,” were results

of public participation. For example, Participant P2 shared,

“all of the major achievements, in the last few years, including the passage of

Measure W - the Safe Clean Water Program, which was the most recent

achievement, were results of the public participation process. With that passage of

that measure, we can fund projects to capture stormwater, not just for water

quality, but for water supply, as well as for flooding benefits in decreasing

flooding. So, there is going to be a lot of tangible results from that funding

measure.”

In agreement, Participant P9 shared,

“the Safe Clean Water Program is a victory. It is one model of what is a

restoration of the political process, where the voters together say what they want.

135

They work through their representatives to get it. They vote to fund it, and off it

goes.”

Also acknowledging that public participation, in the form of coalition involvement, was

critical to the passage of Measure W, Participant P6 shared,

“as a success in that without having that coalition, I do not think that Measure W

– The Safe Clean Water Program would have passed, and that was a significant

funding measure for multi-benefit projects, and… that is important to note at the

city.”

However, not all participants considered Measure W’s success as a grassroots public

participation victory. For instance, Participant P4 shared,

“the County spent $12M+ on a public relation campaign, including large sums to

a handful of NGOs who represented themselves as “of the people” and got folks

to the polls, but in the end, were therefore constrained from advocating for some

of the more meaningful – and also the most highly advertised – benefits of the

program. Specifically, the prioritization of nature-based solutions and actual

benefits to communities. These aspects are not well embedded in the final

measure, and most projects funded to date do not provide either. I mean, it is let

us pat ourselves on the back for something that would not in truth deliver on its

promises.”

Also, over 15 years ago, everyone talked about the passage of the $500 million

Proposition O water bond as one of the successful outcomes of the City of Los Angeles’s

Integrated Resources Program. However, participant P4 shared,

136

“remember Prop O? 15 years ago, it was all anyone would talk about. But in the

end, what we got for half a billion dollars; besides a cleaned-up Echo Park Lake

and the troubled South LA Wetlands, no one can tell you. I mean, none of it was

monitored, so no one knows what, if anything, it did to help LA meet their Total

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) goals. I expect we will see the same, if not worse

from Measure W. Because this time it is funding so much concrete and steel,

exacerbating climate change, rather than helping us mitigate and adapt to it. And

the program is structured to mimic the County’s Integrated Regional Water

Management (IRWM), which is the antithesis of an inclusive, transparent process.

So, the notion of participatory engagement is not in the least applicable to the

implementation of Measure W’s Safe, Clean Water Program.”

The Great Streets Stormwater Program Bottom-Up Approach. To illustrate

another example successful outcome of public participation and engagement in Los

Angeles water resources management that occurred during the retraction and refinement

era, Participant P6 shared,

“I agree with a fellow participant that too many times people try to outreach from

top to bottom, but our great streets stormwater program kind of shifted the way

they did things to try to incubate from the bottom up. So, they have community

organizations (coalition) come up with the projects and apply them into the

program, as opposed to say, here is a project, we are going to impose it on your

community without seeing what you (the community) know. So, this would be an

example of stakeholder involvement.”

137

The Development of One Water Concept. The participants also discussed the

development of the “One Water” Concept as another example successful outcome of

public participation and engagement in Los Angeles water resources management that

occurred during the retraction and refinement era, but with a note of caution. For

example, Participant P14 shared,

“We are having conversations about One Water, everybody is promoting the One

Water concept as that which includes recycled water, potable water, imported water,

rainwater, but where does the water go? Nevertheless, we also got to think about "one-

infrastructure," that carries that One Water because we got to think about how the water is

transported or distributed and to whom. If you take care of the pipes in the city water

distribution system that gets the water to people’s residences or premises, but do not take

care of the aging premise plumbing, it is conceivable that the water still comes out of the

tap not suitable for drinking. This is a potential problem of dual infrastructure systems we

have in Los Angeles.” In another cautious note about the One Water concept, participant

P4 shared, “the concept is nice, but it did not originate here in Los Angeles. The

Integrated Resources Plan was a much better process and it resulted in a better product.”

Also, in a cautious discussion of the One Water concept and message, Participant P1

shared, “How do you handle the issues of continuity and coordinated messaging, like

when the City’s champion for One Water left for another office, and the City’s One Water

program was without a champion, got renamed, and message diffused? The City of LA

was a big proponent of One Water, but now they have

138

changed, and now it is not a One Water message. They now have ‘no wasted

water.’ The gentleman that was the champion of a One Water messaging moved

over to another agency and there has not yet been another champion who has

emerged to lead. So, the One Water messaging that was developed to unify City

of Los Angeles in terms of stormwater, wastewater, recycled water, potable water,

groundwater changed, and the One Water message is not anymore, as a result.”

However, the participants were still generally positive that the development of the One

Water concept and the One Water programs were successful outcomes of public

engagement in Los Angeles water resources management. In support, Participant P14

shared,

“regarding how effective City and County One Water programs are, I think

nonprofits who have dedicated a lot of sweat and blood to engage the community

have moved the needle on public participation. The county and other entities have

gotten much better at public participation.”

In another positive note about the success of the One Water programs and message,

Participant P17 shared, “I think the City of Los Angeles One Water program has received

much coverage, and many people understand it, and I think it is a tremendous effort, so,

are all the other similar efforts.”

Successful Leadership by Elected Representatives and Other Influencers.

Participants P10, P11, P12, and P3 shared successful public participation efforts by

multiple water agencies that reached out to the public through such influencers as opinion

leaders, elected representatives, chambers of commerce, etc. In leading this discussion,

139

Participant P11 shared,

“it makes sense, yes to identify ‘influencers’ and then, it must be done by the

agency representatives, not the consultants. Then, at the end of the day, obtain

from them a ‘charter’ statement or a letter for support, in writing. Now there is the

‘multiplier effect,’ zero opposition on that project, absolutely zero. Now, that

takes a lot, but that is the way I would say public engagement should be targeted.

The multiplier effect is the best approach. The Orange County Water District did

that. They were reaching the public through all the influencers that the public

interacts with. And so Orange County turned their whole public engagement of

how to turn sewer water into drinking water through the support of the influencers

and public opinion leaders and as it turned out there was zero opposition to their

potentially controversial project. It is impossible to reach all the public otherwise.

Now let us talk from there. West Basin Water District used the same approach for

ocean water desalination, to obtain support in writing from the public opinion

leaders including elected representatives, unions, religious leaders, chambers, and

so on. Once support is in writing it allows you to utilize their influence

unequivocally. And then you do that; that is the multiplier effect. That is the most

effective manner to educate because you have got a personal conversation, to

multiply influence in the community. So, you must understand your customer

base to define your strategy, as well. Orange County did and was transparent with

the public from the very beginning.”

140

Successful Water Recycling Outreach. Participant P10, P11, P12, and P13 shared

about how the City of Los Angeles plans to successfully engage the public through

elected representatives, while also reaching out directly to everyone by sending written

public notices of the City’s planned 100% wastewater recycling project at the City’s

Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant. According to Participant 10, who led this discussion,

“the notices will be sent “to every single resident and by reaching out to over 100

Neighborhood Councils in the City that represent various communities within the

City of Los Angeles. The Neighborhood Councils that are active are the ones that

we need to initially reach-out to say, OK, we have this program, we have this

vision, help us get the message out there, and help us get the public to participate,

and let us know what they like to see. So, working through these Neighborhood

Councils has been an effective way that we used in the past to try to get our

recycled water projects and other projects out there so that at least the leaders of

the communities have the information and hopefully get the message out that

way.” Further, P10 shared, “so, Los Angeles is over 3.5 million residents. It will

not be possible to reach every resident to get them involved, but you work

through these ambassadors, as I call neighborhood councils, NGO groups, and

people that we already know out there that are taking an active interest in what we

are doing. That is the best strategy to use, to get the public participation that we

are looking for.”

141

Also, in discussing a collaborative multiple water agency successful public participation

and engagement effort for furthering recycled water use in the region, Participant P2

shared,

“in the mid-2000s or maybe later, we collaboratively, the Los Angeles Sanitation

and Department of Water and Power started a recycled water advisory group, with

the main purpose of working with communities in creating advocates and

furthering recycled water use in the region specifically the groundwater

replenishment projects. So, the groundwater replenishment project is moving

forward because we did the recycled water advisory group, and because we took

that the time to build trust and relationship with our communities, to the point

where they support the project. We now are working on upgrading our Donald C

Tillman Water Reclamation Plant to Advance Treatment to be able to implement

this project and to inject recycled water into the groundwater.”

Outcomes of Reactions to Certain Triggers. The participants shared and believed

that public reactions to certain events and triggers, intended or not and desired or not,

tend to lead to successful public participation outcomes. The participants discussed that

the public tend to participate and engage more, at the time of transforming events and

triggers such as disasters, rationing, droughts, pandemic, etc. Participant P7 shared,

“because we were told to use less water or our rates might have to go up, my household

and many others in the community listened and conserved more water and reused more

water.” Participant P11 shared,

142

“there were tons of media messaging because there were severe droughts, and so

the residents listened, almost like the pandemic in some ways, and that is the time

that you have a public engagement, at the time of transformation and triggers.

Additionally, Participant P11 shared,

“So, it is a reactionary society. The environmental laws that were written and

enacted all caused a reaction or chain reaction. They are policies intended to cause

a reaction. And they did later, in a monumental manner, by returning what was at

one time viewed as reliable water imported into the LA region, back, in some

cases substantial amounts, to the environment. Each new law caused a domino

effect, but it was not until sometime much later that forced a reaction and changed

behaviors, in some cases over 20 years after their promulgation. I really believe it

takes around 10–20-year period after promulgating new environmental laws to

really have a material effect.”

The Expected Future Era Outcomes That Hold Promise Today. With hope in

what is happening in our world, the participants shared insights into the expected future

outcomes of public participation and engagement in Los Angeles water resources that are

being crafted, today. Participant P14 shared,

“it is better to phrase the future as this sort of arc that is taking us there, but that is

not where we are yet. That the arc of One Water and public participation is taking

us towards a place where more people can be heard, more people can stay

committed, but maybe that is the goal, as opposed to where we are already.”

Participant P15 shared,

143

“as to where we go from here is a piece that we are crafting now or provide

people with insight on. One of the pieces that are being crafted now is

recognizing equity, race relations in environmental issues, climate change

impacts, and supporting sustained public engagement.”

Participant P16 shared,

“about race relations and environmental issues, the Sunrise movement is this

grassroots organization that works on the Green New Deal and promoting climate

change awareness for all levels of government, offers no strings attached

scholarships to Black indigenous people of color who are the organizers

throughout the entire country. Furthermore, by providing financial compensation

for their efforts to work on climate activism, they have a much stronger

foundation than being burnout and therefore stay involved for longer times.”

Participant P14 shared,

“nature will always win. When dealing with water issues, we need to work more

on people management, not water management. We need to find better ways to

interact with it. So, I think there is an opportunity with what is happening in our

world today.”

In discussing a potential model of the future, Participant P9 shared, “the other

potential model for the future is the technical partnerships starting to be more rigorous.”

To explain, Participant P9 shared,

“the examples are the Metropolitan Water District and Los Angeles County

Sanitation Districts working together to generate recycled water. The City of Los

144

Angeles Department of Water and Power and Los Angeles Sanitation

and

Environment are working together to generate 100% recycled water as part of the

City's Green New Deal plan under Mayor Garcetti. Alternatively, the most recent

example of future partnership is that the Metropolitan Water District, in Los

Angeles, is now or may be planning a partnership with Las Vegas, the Nevada

Water Authority, where Nevada will pay Metropolitan Water District to produce

recycled water and then take less from the Colorado River so that Nevada can

have it instead.”

Additionally, Participant P9 shared,

“so, you are getting these very sophisticated partnerships between these broad

regional governance entities. So, and maybe both things will be true going

forward, we are heading into a much more sophisticated era of partnership,

collaborative work, where people are connecting outputs and inputs much more

effectively than in the past, which is the Dorothy Green model. Furthermore, I do

not know which way it is going to play out, and it is probably going to be a little

bit of both.”

Evidence of Trustworthiness

Credibility

Credibility strategies state in Chapter 3 were implemented in the following

manner. As suitable for a qualitative study, triangulation was implemented between the

observation notes and the interview. I conducted members to check in more than one way.

First, prolonged contact of hours and days, instead of prolonged engagement of weeks

145

and months with participants, provided room for more dialogues and clarification of

captured responses. Second, by flow up emails to participants seeking confirmation of

responses and requesting supporting information to understand participant responses

better. Third, by member checking to test veracity of the data, analytic categories (e.g.,

codes), interpretations, and conclusions. Credibility strategies implemented also include

conducting more interviews and one other focus group of water agencies managers that

was not anticipated in Chapter, a total of nine participants more than the 10 stated in

Chapter 3 that provided that shared benefit of more insight into the issues and increased

corroboration of other participant’s information or the reason why not. Saturation was

reached when the understanding being sought began to repeat or when the same stories,

themes, issues, and topics emerge from the interviewees (Boyce & Neale, 2006).

Transferability

The appropriate strategies to establish transferability included a full description

that specifies the minimum elements necessary for re-create findings. The strategy also

included a detailed description of the participants, procedures, and context to enable

others to judge other possible application sites' similarities. As another strategy for

achieving transferability, the research findings were made available to other areas of

comparative contexts, situations, and people - conditions similar enough to make findings

applicable, to use as they see fit.

Dependability

The appropriate strategies used to establish dependability included audit trails

related to recording the raw data; process and products of data reduction, analysis, and

146

synthesis; methodological process notes; reflexive notes; and instrument development

techniques. Dependability was also established by triangulation to account for instability

and change within the natural context. Also, naturally occurring phenomena were

documented to establish stability and change.

Confirmability

Consistent with Chapter 3, the appropriate strategies used to establish

confirmability related to the capacity to authenticate the internal coherence of data,

findings, interpretations, and recommendations included documenting the researcher as

an instrument and potential bias sources. The confirmability strategies applied also

include keeping reflexive journals that consist of the researcher’s notes and the

documentation of my thinking throughout the research process. No adjustments to

consistency strategies stated in Chapter 3 were necessary or made.

Summary of Emergent Themes—Study Results

The emergent themes from data analysis summarized here addressed the research

question, which explored the roles, importance, effectiveness, and outcomes of public

participation in Los Angeles water resources management. Also, the summarized themes

address the gap in the literature on Los Angeles specific public participation experience in

water resources management, from participants’ perceptions that shared to what has

already been researched. The summarized emergent themes present a deeper

understanding and awareness of why Los Angeles water supply now depends less on

imported water supply from outside the Los Angeles region, an outcome of the continuing

individual and collective roles of public participation to maintain a sustainable balance –

147

the balance between water supply need and other needs of the community residents,

environment, and the economy.

The data analysis key outcome is the emergency of three overarching themes: the

roles, effectiveness, and outcomes of public participation in Los Angeles water resources

management. Except for one discrepant case, this outcome confirms three out of the four

prior themes identified in the literature, which were based on the research question - the

roles, importance, effectiveness, and outcomes of public participation in Los Angeles

water resources management? The one discrepant case is that the a priori theme of

importance did not emerge as one of the three overarching themes from data analysis of

roles, effectiveness, and outcomes. The discrepant case is addressed by being combined

or subsumed into the overarching theme of roles as their meanings are similar, in that to

play a role is necessary because the public will not play a role if public participation is

not essential. The following summarizes the three overarching themes that resulted from

data analysis – the roles, effectiveness, and outcomes of public participation in Los

Angeles water resources management.

Roles Summary

Participants shared that the public participation roles in Los Angeles water

resources management include:

• Opening communication pathways, increase awareness by informing people

correctly and adequately, having a coordinated message, and holding elected

officials and water agencies accountable for exercising their authority on

behalf of the community.

148

• Changing to inclusive equity narrative at the top to level the playing field,

eliminate disparities, eradicate blind spots of systematic racism, close the gaps

of environmental justice, bring all voices of the people and environment to the

table, and ensure equity of consistent, quality, and affordable access to clean

drinking water for all.

• Restructuring governance by creating two super regional agencies, one for

water resources management and the other for land use planning, to reduce

duplication of siloed planning while achieving transparency, unified message,

policy, leadership, and delivery of reliable water, while reducing dependence

on imported water supply.

• Demonstrating political will by exercising our individual and collective will in

engaging, establishing, and implementing public goals and exercising political

will and influence over public administrators and elected representatives to

achieve community objectives and desired outcomes.

• Understanding and ensuring regulatory development and enforcement

consistently protecting the community, and not eliminating the flexibility and

options that the public might need later or stopping public agencies from

being able to do the right thing, to meet the regulation, but rather leading to

increased involvement and the right kinds of water policies and projects that

the community needs.

• Maintaining and increasing trust, understanding, awareness, transparency, and

accountability, with the best interest of communities in mind; addressing

149

historical trust-related resentments, polarizations, and distress in

disadvantaged communities; and building new collaborative relationships and

partnerships for restoring lost community trust to achieve desired community

outcomes.

• Developing, funding, and implementing the holistic, sustainable, resilient,

participative, collaborative, integrated, and adaptive approach to Los Angeles

water resources management.

• Involving and engaging the people, from the very beginning and remaining

throughout the process, and not as an after-thought, to make policy changes

and have the public's support. However, how planners present information to

the public makes a difference in getting the desired community outcomes.

Outcomes Summary

The participants discussed and described the extraction era, and the retraction and

refinement era as the two primary public participation outcomes in Los Angeles Water

Resources Management, in the following ways

• The extraction of water resources, the exhaustion of local water supply, or their

degradation to where they could no longer be a reliable source of water supply,

and the importation of water supply from outside the Los Angeles region of

Southern California – the extraction era.

• The lessening of imported water dependency by retracting or reducing imported

water supply; refining the reduced imported water supply through the

implementation of initiatives and programs that include water conservation, reuse,

150

or recycle, and through participative integrated and adaptive management

strategies and plans – the retraction and refinement era.

Extraction Era Outcomes Summary

The participants discussed the early stages of Los Angeles water supply history

that go back to the indigenous or Native American era, before the City of Los Angeles

was founded in the 1700s, and which ended with the last of the major water infrastructure

projects in the 1960s. The participants described the early stages by many names

including: the hydraulic era, the era of extraction and refinement, the William Mulholland

era, and the era of engineering. Also, the participants described the early stages as the era

of imported water dependency, for the following two main reasons:

• local water resources were used up, and water importation dependency began that

have been reduced, but not given up on, rather, likely remains as a permanent

feature of Los Angeles water supply portfolio; and

• consideration for people engagement and environmental impacts were not in the

“DNA of the time or thought off,” avoided, suppressed, or discouraged, all of

which contributed or led to imported water dependency, unreliable or unstainable

water supply, and the great conflict with resident of water exporting area, which

coupled with climate change impacts have changed how Los Angeles manages

local and imported water resources.

As a “take-away” from the outcomes of the extraction era, the participants shared that

water resources agencies and policymakers should care deeply, particularly, about the

151

long-term interests of the people they serve and those from where LA gets its water

supply and their environment, as the highest goal of serving the community.

Retraction and Refinement Era Outcomes Summary

The participants discussed and described the retraction and refinement era as:

• The outcome of nature and public push back at the excesses of the extraction era,

particularly, the hydraulic era – the social and environmental impacts of decades

of water withdrawal and export to Los Angeles.

• That which began with the environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s,

which produced key federal and state legislation and regulatory authorities that

enabled public engagement, activism, and advocacy, particularly, through the

courts, which limited the amount of water that the Los Angeles region could

import from other regions. This meant that much of the water that Los Angeles

counted on from the Owens Valley and Bay Delta now stays in Owens Valley and

Bay Delta areas, causing the retraction and the retraction era.

• The outcome of the environmental movement and climate change because the

retraction is being exacerbated by the uncertainty of climate change, and both the

retraction and climate change uncertainties have materially changed how the Los

Angeles region manages water resources and supply.

However, the participants shared that the retraction era’s public activism, engagement and

advocacy are not entirely litigative. It also relied on membership networks, partnerships,

and alliances to achieve desired outcomes in landscape areas where the government has

failed to do something well. The participants also mentioned that this era is not entirely

152

about nature and peoples’ push back, but also about refinements. The refinements were

the many initiatives advocated and implemented by the people and agencies. Some of the

initiatives included water conservation and recycling; participative, integrated water

resources planning, and adaptive management; sustainability, resiliency and climate

change adaptation planning; and the consideration of people engagement and the

environment, as key stakeholders in public decision-making processes and regulations,

and not as afterthoughts.

Specific Successful Outcomes Summary

The participants discussed specific successful outcomes of the retraction and

refinement era, and key among them were:

• That interest and confidence in the democratic process of public engagement

through the courts, public administration, or legislation were re-established. The

democratic process has always been there as the expressed confidence of people

to participate, by the framers of the United States constitution. However, during

the extraction era, the confidence was weakened by the excesses of the Los

Angeles founding fathers for not regarding meaningful public engagement and the

environment in their pursuit for water supply for the growth of Los Angeles into

the nation’s second largest city that it has become. Success in people engagement

and environmental consideration did not come until the retraction era when the

Environmental Movement of the 1960s and 1970s resulted in key legislation and

establishment of regulatory agencies that provided the legal tools, which

increased public confidence for engagement and activism through the courts and

153

the regulatory agencies, towards restoring confidence in the democratic process,

once again.

• The consideration of people and environment as key stakeholders in water

resources management decision-making processes, and not as afterthoughts,

specifically, the application of public trust doctrine and other decisions that

limited how much water Los Angeles can import, which along with climate

change factors such as drought, forced Los Angeles to conserve, recycle, or

source their water supply locally. For example, the consent decree that forced

approximately $2 billion in the Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant was a big win

for the wastewater coalitions and advocacy groups.

• That in the last few years, all the major achievements, including the passage of

Proposition ‘O’ and Measure W - the Safe Clean Water Program, the most recent

achievement, resulted from the public participation process of the retraction and

refinement era. The Safe Clean Water Program was a victory model restoration of

the political process, where the voters together expressed what they wanted and

worked through their elected representatives to develop it, passed, or approved it,

and then voted to fund it.

• The agencies and policymakers began to listen, and signs of successful outcomes

of public participation in Los Angeles water resources management began to

emerge and expected to grow as all sides show more willingness to work

collaboratively with increasing mutual understanding, trust, and goal of serving

the public needs in the most holistic, integrated, yet balanced manner.

154

•

The successes from public pushing over the years and working with public

elected official and administrator that include the development of the One Water

concept from the prior participative integrated and adaptive management planning

processes; changing outreach paradigm from top-down to bottom-up approach;

and people engagement from the very beginning of a project rather than later or

not at all.

• The development of the Green New Deal as the latest and most significant

success from the public participation processes throughout the years of working

with the Mayor's office on the Sustainable City plan and the Resiliency Plan.

However, regarding the Green New Deal, Participant P4 shared that it is “not a

Green New Deal at all. Just a re-branded Sustainability “pLAn” that will

disappear with the next Mayor. Same with the Resiliency Plan. Because almost

none of the goals have been translated into funded programs or departmental

policies.”

Effectiveness Summary

The participants discussed that the effectiveness of public participation depends

on some of the following:

• The ability to make and adapt to changes, particularly, overcoming limiting

institutional and systematic practices;

• Overcoming cost or funding constraints, as well as limited available resources

and incentives; and

155

• How information and technology are provided and used.

Institutional Changes Summary

The participants discussed the need for institutional paradigm changes, to achieve

effective public participation in Los Angeles water resources management, as following:

• Planning for land use and water infrastructure development that is best for the

community.

• Restructuring governance.

• Considering the environment and public as key stakeholders or equal partners in

decision-making processes, not as an after-thought.

• Returning to the democratic ideal of public engagement of the progressive era,

during which President Woodrow Wilson founded public administration as that

which administers; and during which the elected was viewed as that authorized

by the people to represent them; and the public was viewed as that retaining the

power to demand accountability and improved service delivery to meet the

present and the future needs of the community – sustainability.

• Being less bureaucratic and taking the needed quick, bold actions to address

community needs, effectively. The participants discussed that when the

expectations of the public, policymakers, and the water agencies clash, all suffer.

The effectiveness of public engagement, public administration, and policymaking

efforts suffer, leading to continued bureaucratic practices of being slow to act,

embracing incrementalism, and not taking the needed quick, bold actions to

address community needs, effectively.

156

•

Building capacity in the community for effective, meaningful, and or long-term

continuous engagement and viewing residents as informed, equal partners in

decision making processes. The participants shared that the water agencies may

be well intended in their expectations of the public, however, maybe the water

agencies are not conveying the intentions to the public as intended. For example,

the participants shared it has been the intentions of the water agencies to learn

something new from public engagement efforts and reach out to the community

with the information, so that the community residents can engage more

meaningfully and consistently. Also, the water agencies intended to build

capacity for long term continuous engagement with the people in the

communities as informed, equal partners in the decision-making process, without

leaving any community behind. However, the water agencies have not been

effective in conveying their intentions, well, leading to limited public

involvement and engagement outcomes

• Establishing a fully engaged process approach that is collaborative, integrated,

multi-sector including the community, democratic, and beyond that expected by

the law and regulations, though that may cost more. The participants discussed a

renewed interest in the representative democratic process of the elected

representatives representing the broader community, in leading the charge to

achieve the fully engaged process approach for addressing community needs or

157

be held accountable by the people. Also, the participants were expecting water

agency managers to provide their technical expertise in a collaborative approach,

and utilize influencers, including local community trusted activists, elected

officials, or NGOs, to outreach the community.

However, participant P4 shared,

“the biggest challenge here, is that the technical expertise within the agencies is

outmoded. It is partly their pride and unwillingness to learn and truly collaborate

with scientists and other expertise, and it is partly the fault of leadership not

recognizing the need for and demanding changes to their civil service lists. They

can only hire what the list specifies. And the expertise they can hire is not

equipped to deal with the overlapping challenges of climate change. Yes, it is

critical to collaborate and engage with the public; it is even more critical for them

to cede their self-anointed primacy as engineers-who-rule-everything, take a seat,

and follow the lead of planners, biological, earth, atmospheric, and social

scientists. The engineer's place in water and land use now is to listen, learn, and

respond. Our work must be multi-disciplinary if it is to serve to help us survive

this century.”

Cost and Financial Incentives Summary

Regarding cost as well as financial and regulatory incentives, the participants

shared the following:

• Water needs to be affordable to all.

158

•

• It takes public participation and engagement to provide funding and regulatory

incentives for achieving community goals, plans, and priorities.

In Los Angeles, people’s effectiveness in implementing sustainable solutions to

reduce dependence on imported water supply is limited by cost. Thus, the public

must be willing to invest in this system, particularly on a consistent, long-term

basis, due to certain individuals and communities that would not be able to

participate, otherwise, or get the level of public services they ought to have.

Some funding and financial incentives may be necessary for certain participants

without the financial support and wherewithal to engage and participate.

• Water agencies should care a lot about their communities. It is water agencies’

responsibility to ensure consistent, affordable access to clean drinking water for

all, but it is also within the state government's responsibility to ensure that quality

water is available to all individuals and communities.

However, according to Participant P4, the cost limitation on sustainable solutions is

“only when your ‘multi-benefit’ projects are not multi-benefit. When you design

and realize projects that are (multi-benefit), then benefits to public health and

safety can accrue, and costs can be shared beyond just water agencies. It’s

unfortunate that the unwillingness to figure out how to truly collaborate and

costshare prevents us from multi-solving and perpetuates the notion that these

things are expensive.”

159

Information Summary

The participants discussed that information is critical, but it depends on how the

information is framed and the individuals participating. Accordingly, participant 18

shared,

“information is critical, but only as good as they stay the basis by which and on

which that information is developed, and as good as the knowledge, and

awareness, of the individuals who have participated, but the idea of bringing that

information to the public, is still a good thing because it still makes them also

aware, so, then they can do own homework, in terms of educating themselves,

getting them more familiar with the issues of concern, asking questions that are

important to them, and seeking the answers to their satisfaction, in terms of what

is the best interest of the community, as a whole. It becomes how the information

is framed and who is at the table and how powerful that opposition is.”

Future Era Summary

In general, the participants discussed continuing retraction and refinement era

outcomes and expected future outcomes of public participation in Los Angeles water

resources management including the following:

• The continuing public participation and engagement to produce future retraction

and refinement of water supply outcomes in the face of continuing climate

change and drought condition uncertainties as the environmental and community

impacts of the extraction era continues to unfold in the years to come, if not

forever.

160

•

• The expectation, for the foreseeable future, if not forever that imported water

supply will remain an indispensable part of the water resources portfolio for Los

Angeles, barring any unforeseen events such as megadroughts and earthquakes

161

however, retracted and refined it may be, and however locally available and

sourced alternatives may be identified, established, or found.

• The development of a ‘one-infrastructure’ concept for ensuring the proper

maintenance of both the municipal owned water distribution pipelines and the

individual property owners premise plumbing pipelines to ensure water coming

out of the faucets is drinkable, particularly in the disadvantaged communities.

• The establishment of a unified and coordinated messaging for public

participation in Los Angeles water resources management to achieve the

following:

o Increased communication and building back trust with the policymakers,

water agencies, and regulatory authorities, including increased showing

up at the regulatory and water agencies’ decision-making meetings and

meaningfully being part of the process.

o Increased awareness and Information about the impacts that water use has

on local communities and those communities from where water is

imported, and the solutions to mitigate those impacts.

o Increased involvement with regional water management efforts and

governance.

o Increased understanding of the safety of recycled water as an alternative

to imported water dependency in Los Angeles and overcome the past

attempts to transition to water recycling that were met with public

resistance for lack of understanding about the safety of recycled water.

162

• Improved climate change adaptation.

• The continuing and invigorated public participation and awareness will lead to a

corresponding continued retraction and refinement of water supply, produce

continuing lessening of dependence on imported water supply, and a search for

more locally sourced water supply. Best left to be explored in future studies is

whether the lessening of dependence on imported water supply will continue

until a sustainable balance is reached with an irreducible amount of imported

water supply, barring any unforeseen events such as megadroughts and

earthquakes, or the unlikely event of the complete elimination of imported water

supply.

• The likely indispensable part of the future sustainable balance equation will be

the public participation and engagement that will no longer be viewed as

afterthoughts by water agencies and policymakers. I hope that will not be

wishful thinking on the part of the participants, but here, too, this may be best

left for future studies to explore.

Overall, the expectation of future era outcomes is speculative and is best left for further

future studies due to the limited time to analyze them fully, in the present study.

Summary

This chapter's key idea is the emergent of three overarching themes from data

collection and analysis: the roles, effectiveness, and outcomes of public participation in

Los Angeles water resources management that aligned with the literature review and

answered three out of the four tenets of the research question. The one discrepant tenet is

163

combined with another in alignment with the research question's overall goal and

purpose of the research study. The NVivo software was used to facilitate coding and

thematic analysis, and it also facilitated the development of the three overarching

emergent themes and subthemes. Each of the three overarching emergent themes from

data analysis has subthemes, and some also have categories, and subcategories of themes

that further explain and support research question and a priori themes presented in Table

2. An important idea and approach employed in the chapter were collecting data from a

diversity of opinions and knowledgeable sources, consisting of 19 participating

volunteers drawn from the communities and nonprofit organizations, the water agencies

and their consultants, and policymakers. Of the 19 participants, seven were involved in

the individual semistructured interviews, and12 were involved in the three focus group

sessions that I conducted.

Despite the unique challenges posed to the participant by the coronavirus

pandemic lockdowns and the divisive election and politics in Washington DC, I was able

to collect and analyze valuable data, and obtained the meaningful conclusion that public

participation effectively played essential roles in achieving desirable Los Angeles water

resources management outcomes, with further interpretations and recommendations to be

discussed in Chapter 5.

164

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

The purpose of this study was to explore, from participants’ perspective, public

participation roles and impacts on Los Angeles water resources management, particularly

in addressing the reliability of Los Angeles’s water supply while lessening dependence

on imported water supply, a perennial problem for Los Angeles. In other words, I aimed

to explore and understand the public’s role in participating and collaborating with Los

Angeles water resources agencies and policymakers to find a lasting, reliable solution to

the problem of Los Angeles’s limited water resources and lessen dependence on

imported water supply from other regions.

The study’s nature was that of a qualitative case study that started by conducting

a literature review that identified the gaps in the literature and then conducting data

collection and data analysis to identify themes. I conducted data collection from 19

volunteer participants representing diverse opinions. Participants were drawn from the

communities and nonprofit organizations, water agencies, consultants, and policymakers.

Seven of the 19 volunteers participated in online semistructured interviews, and the

remaining 12 volunteers participated in the three online focus group sessions that I

conducted. Following data collection, I conducted data coding, using the NVivo software

system and analysis of coded data using a thematic approach, which resulted in the

emergence of three main themes of the roles, effectiveness, and outcomes of public

participation in Los Angeles water resources management, with many subthemes,

categories, and subcategories .

165

The study was conducted to add to the limited body of knowledge about the

experiences of residents, water agency administrators, and policymakers regarding Los

Angeles water resources management and outcomes. The study was also conducted to

increase awareness and participation of the public in the Los Angeles water resources

management decision-making processes and make other positive changes to the quality

of life of all Los Angeles residents.

Key findings of the present study are the confirmation that public participation is

playing important roles and effectively achieving outcomes toward a more sustainable

balance between the economic, environmental, and social equity needs of both the water

exporting and importing communities, which is making Los Angeles less dependent on

imported water supply and more dependent on alternative sources of water supply as

rebalancing is occurring.

Interpretation of Findings

The goal here is to describe how the research findings confirm, disconfirm, or

extend knowledge in the discipline found in the peer-reviewed literature, and to analyze

and interpret the research findings in the context of the study’s theoretical foundation.

Findings in Context of Peer-Reviewed Literature Outcomes

The following section addresses how the research findings confirm, disconfirm, or

extend knowledge in the discipline by comparing them with what has been found in the

peer-reviewed literature described in Chapter 2. The present study did not change the fact

that there is still scant literature on the best way to create policy while considering the

people’s voice (Fitzgerald et al., 2016). The findings confirm the portrayal of public

166

participation as a key component in policy decision making but extend the portrayal to

the extent that the planners and experts at the water agencies do not skew the information

presented to public participants. Hence, the findings confirm that the decision-making

process is often driven not by the public but by public administrators, including experts,

institutions, and governing bodies (Fitzgerald et al., 2016), as was particularly the case

during the extraction era of large hydraulic water infrastructure projects used by Los

Angeles to import water supply other regions that included the Owens Valley, the

California Bay Delta, and the Colorado River. The research findings confirm that the

extraction era was ended by the retraction and refinement era’s strong public activism,

coalition formation, and advocacy that started with the Environment Movement of the

1960s and the 1970s—the “watershed years for citizen participation” (Glazer et al., 2006,

p. 180). The research findings show that public participation in public debate issues and

decision-making processes such as those involved in Los Angeles water resources

management made a difference in shaping and driving public water infrastructure

projects and policies during the retraction and refinement era. For example, public

activism and advocacy during the retraction and refinement era, through the courts,

limited Los Angeles ability to import water from other areas. Also the public activism

and advocacy led to the establishment of many of the retraction and refinement era

initiatives that included water conservation, reuse, recycling, and implementation of

integrated and adaptive management approaches, all of which further lessened Los

Angeles dependence on imported water supply, while addressing the social equity and

environmental excesses of the extraction era.

167

The research findings confirm that in Los Angeles, participative or collaborative,

sustainable, integrated, and adaptive water resources, regional planning, and

decisionmaking processes are emerging and transitioning phenomena (Antos, 2016). For

example, 1994 was the first time that the State of California integrated its Water Code,

Fish and Wildlife Code, and the common law of public trust (Kiparsky, 2014), resulting

in the emergence of California’s regional concept of integrated water resources planning

and management. In 2014, the people of California embraced sustainable water

management at the state, regional, and local levels due to natural events, particularly

climate change and the 5 consecutive years of drought from 2012 to 2016 (Hanak et al.,

2011; Peden, 2016). At the state level, the drought brought increased attention to

California’s water woes and motivated California Governor Brown and state legislators

to formally embrace sustainable water resource management (Hanak et al., 2011; Peden,

2016). As a result, California enacted its first sustainable water resources management

law in 2014.

At the local level, the drought motivated the City of Los Angeles to enter the

second phase of its integrated water resources planning effort, formally referred to as the

One Water LA Program (One Water LA Program, 2015). The One Water LA Program’s

(2015) key objective is to achieve enhanced public participation and integrated planning

across all water service functions of drinking water, wastewater (sewage), and

stormwater, and to avoid producing duplicative and cost-prohibitive independent plans

for each water service function. The One Water LA Program involves developing one

regional plan affecting drinking water, wastewater, stormwater (watershed management),

168

water conservation, water reuse, and water recycling, with public participation by citizen

stakeholders at the center (One Water LA Program, 2015). Thus, citizen stakeholders’

public participation is now on the rebound—increasingly accepted and gaining strength

in Los Angeles’s water resources planning and water infrastructure development

decisions. However, Participant P4 shared,

“the One Water Plan is staggeringly opaque. Even some of the consultants who

wrote it have reached out to the NGO community to try and find out what

happened to it, where it stands, is it showing up in any policy, where is the

project list, etc.”

Further, the research findings confirm that with increasing concern over

environmental impacts, ecosystem damage, and economic cost, water resources

management is transitioning from a “hard path” of relying on hydraulic infrastructure to

a “soft path” of considering participative, collaborative, and efficient water management

that is supported by the United Nations’s Integrated Water Resources Management

(IWRM) approach to managing water from an integrated and holistic perspective, both in

natural water state and in balancing competing demands for water, to achieve long-term

water sustainability (Wang, 2017). However, in disagreement, Participant P4 shared,

“Please show me where that is happening in Los Angeles. I do not see it. IRWM still

interprets “integrated” to mean “in any given year/funding cycle we are doing a water

supply project, a water quality project, a recycled water project, etc.” The City putting all

their eggs (and $) into the Hyperion project (the proposed100% water recycling project

at Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant) is neither holistic

169

nor balanced. The County’s draft Los Angeles River Master Plan makes clear that

engineers consider the hard path as not only preferable but something that should

not be questioned.”

The research findings confirm that participants expressed a desire to return to

participatory democracy and the notion of returning power to the ordinary people, not

only via initiatives and recall elections (Burke, 2001; Krutz et al., 2019), but also through

re-establishing communication pathways with elected officials to provide inclusive

representation of everyone, leaving no community out.

In conclusion, the research findings confirm the four preliminary themes

developed or during the literature review. First, public participation and consideration

were absent for environmental impacts during the extraction era—the early stages of Los

Angeles’s water resource planning effort (LADWP, 2013). Second, the extraction era

evidenced a lack of consideration of the sustainable and integrated principle of a

balanced approach to water resources planning (Hanak et al., 2011)—one that

emphasizes the economy, the ecology, and social equity principles that consist of the “3

Es” of sustainability as declared by the United Nations. Third, the retraction and

refinement era brought about the capacity for progress over time and learning from the

mistakes made by predecessors, as evidenced by an increased emphasis on integrated

planning and a renewed concern for the environment (Council for Watershed Council,

2015; One Water LA Program, 2015; Water LA Report, 2018). Fourth, there is increased

emphasis on collaborative planning and decision making, as recognized at multiple

levels, including the courts, government and public sector planners, citizen stakeholders,

170

and nonprofit organizations. This includes a heightened participative role for individual

stakeholders, private sector organizations, stakeholder organizations, and government

agencies in the

Los Angeles water resources planning process (Green, 2007).

Findings in Context of the Theoretical Foundation

The emerging and transitioning conditions of participative or collaborative,

sustainable, integrated, and adaptive water resources, regional planning, and

decisionmaking processes in Los Angeles account for the limited research in the

literature on Los Angeles water resources management efforts, particularly based on ACF

theoretical concepts and principles. The ACF theoretical framework is used to guide and

examine collaborative efforts for identifying and implementing water management

solutions of a regional scale; and integrating, implementing, and adapting water

management solutions for the regions (Pincetl et al., 2016).

ACF theory is a framework (Ostrom, 1999) that includes three theories: advocacy

coalitions, policy-oriented learning, and policy change reflecting winning advocacy

coalitions’ policy beliefs (Pierce & Weible, 2016). The research findings confirm that the

advocacy coalitions were those of the environment movement era that led to key water

and air quality regulations. The environmental movement era regulations provided the

legal footing for coalitions of the water-exporting regions and their partner regulatory

agencies. They applied through the courts the winning advocacy coalition’s policy

beliefs involving public trust, the environment as a stakeholder, equity, and protection of

fish and wildlife to materially quench Los Angeles’s then-insatiable thirst and quest for

171

more water importation of the extraction era. Hence, the research findings confirm a

synopsis of recent case studies from the literature on how ACF theory guides research on

water, climate change, and environmental policy issues (Pierce et al., 2016; Weible &

Sabatier,

n.d., as cited in Fischer et al., 2006).

Considering the ACF theory framework, public participation can be understood to

relate to what motivates stakeholder groups to form, sustain, and influence water

resources planning; work through existing institutional arrangements to fundamentally

change institutions; and create positive social change.

The findings also confirm that advocacy and participatory worldview research,

such as the present study, is having a transformative effect by leading to positive action

agendas for reforming and changing the lives of participants, institutions, and

communities in which individuals work or live, as well as researchers’ lives (Creswell &

Creswell, 2018). This was evident when the participant volunteers urged me to continue

hosting focus group sessions on a similar or the same topic of public participation Los

Angeles water resources management, after the conclusion of this research study, as a

means of continuing to share information, as well as motivate and engage community

members, in issues of great importance to them, such as water resources infrastructure

development. Also, based on Berry et al. (1993) and Musso and Weare (2017), the

research findings confirm that the advocacy and participatory worldview research, when

viewed as civic engagement and democracy can be means of spurring greater citizen

172

participation, developing a deeper sense of community, stronger trust in government

officials, and greater confidence in the decision-making system.

The research findings also confirm that increasing collaboration helps people to

(a) understand information better, (b) become empowered to solve problems with new

ideas, (c) generate greater consensus, and (d) develop a voice in government that leads to

long-term support for public policy recommendations (Bekkers, 2004; Brody et al.,

2003;

Buckwalter et al.,1993; Fiskaa, 2005; Irvin & Stansbury, 2004; Kathi & Cooper, 2005;

Kunde, 1994). Further, the research findings confirm that involving members of the

public in a process in which they can participate allows governance to retain legitimacy

(Bingham et al., 2005), whereas not involving the public in decision-making processes

deprives governance of valuable people and legitimacy (Walters et al., 2000).

The research findings confirm that ACF theory’s advocacy coalition interaction,

learning, policy changes, and actors sharing their beliefs and coordinating actions to

influence public policy were evident in Los Angeles water resources management. This

was evident when the Los Angeles coalition formation actors began conversations to form

a coalition that later became an effective grassroots citizen stakeholder watershed council

for influencing water policies in Los Angeles, in response to Los Angeles water resources

agencies that would not share information among themselves or with the public (Council

for Watershed Health, 2015; Green, 2007). It was also evident when 500 individuals and

stakeholders’ groups collaborated with water agencies as part of the Los Angeles IRP to

effectively stop duplicative planning processes for yielding singlepurpose plans for each

173

water service function and replacing them with a holistic, collaborative approach that

saved taxpayers costs and won the USEPA Water award (City of Los Angeles, 2006).

Limitations of the Study

The limitations to trustworthiness that arose from the study’s execution did not

change from those noted in Chapter 1 of the dissertation. The online data collection

system was intermittent, interfering with the transcription system’s quality to accurately

capture what was being said without gaps. This was corrected during member checking

and triangulation my research notes and audio recordings.

There remains the limitation of design and methodological weaknesses related to

transferability and dependability, which involved the almost exclusive focus on

importing water from Owens Valley in the Sierra Nevada area of California in contrast to

importing water from the other two main sources for Los Angeles—i.e., the California

Bay Delta and the Colorado River basin. However, during the study’s execution,

importing water from the California Bay Delta and the Colorado River were mentioned

more than expected but they were still generally overlooked to minimize resource

constraints and negatively impacting the study results. The almost exclusive focus on

importing water from the Owens Valley is because the Owens Valley has served as the

primary source of water for the Los Angeles region, for over a century. As a result,

Owens Valley provides the case that is most representative of the water importation

process and community stakeholder group involvement or the lack thereof related to Los

Angeles. This potential limitation did not hurt the dependability of the present study’s

outcomes. Likewise, the absence of participants from Owens Valley did not hurt the

174

dependability of the present study’s outcomes. Such individuals were invited but did not

respond to the recruitment invitation.

There are certain regions of the world where the present study’s research findings

cannot be generalized. The generalizability of the findings of this study to other areas is

not automatic. For example, a large metropolitan community that is unable to import

water from an external source would be less likely to benefit from the present study.

However, in the present study, I placed emphasis on the use of trustworthiness strategies

to enhance the accuracy, relevancy, and acceptability of findings, thus providing the

foundation for the Los Angeles water resources management outcomes to be replicated

in certain other contexts. Overall, the inability to generalize this study’s findings on a

universal basis does not detract from its importance.

There remained the following limitations:

• The Los Angeles water resources managers’ biases and institutional barriers,

including the managers’ ability and willingness to engage and sustain participative

collaboration with the community stakeholders and advocacy groups.

• The interviewee political bias against the water resources management policy

directions of the policymakers, especially the policymakers in Washington DC, given

the divisive political climate at the time.

• The differences in water resources experience, motivations, and perceptions that

could have limited interviewee responses and skewed study responses.

However, the interview questions were designed to avoid these biases and not include

political questions.

175

Recommendations

Recommendations for Future Research

In terms of transferability, the present study was limited and restricted to a single

case study of public participation in Los Angeles water resources management,

particularly related to water importation from the Owens Valley, one of the three primary

areas Los Angeles imports its water supply. However, knowledge and experiences of the

volunteer participants from the communities, NGOs, water agency administrators, and

policymakers gained through participation in Los Angeles water resources management

are expected to inform future studies aimed at exploring and examining water

importation from other regions, including the California Bay Delta and the Colorado

River, or water importation by other California cities such as the City of San Francisco.

To this end, I would recommend future studies to adopt a mixed-method research

approach to a study involving more than one case study to compare the generated results.

The present study participants were affiliated, knowledgeable, and experienced

about the Los Angeles water resources management and the parties involved and may

have attempted to protect the organizations' reputation with which they were affiliated.

As a result, I recommend that future studies explore other stakeholders' perceptions

regarding the Los Angeles water resources management. Additionally, I recommend that

future studies use quantitative methods, instead of the qualitative method used in the

present study, to quantify the important roles, effectiveness, and outcomes of the Los

Angeles water resources management.

176

Recommendations for Practice

I recommend that the lived experiences of those involved - the communities

impacted and the planners and policymakers that administered the Los Angeles water

resources management during the Extraction, as well as the present Retraction and

Refinement eras, including the knowledge gained therein, should inform the Los Angeles

water resources management operations, policies, and infrastructure developments. This

is particularly important as Los Angeles is considering implementing major water

infrastructure projects in response to climate change, and 100% recycling of its

wastewater is expected to be as large, if not larger, than the large inter-regional hydraulic

projects of the extraction era. These aqueducts brought imported water to Los Angeles.

According to Clavier & O'Neill 2017, Citizen stakeholder involvement and public

participation in the form of policy coalitions can provide a means for understanding how

several actors, including public officials, private actors, and the community, can work

together towards sustainable governance and making sustainable public policies.

Additionally, to ensure effective, efficient, and socially equitable Los Angeles

water resources management operations and policies that address all relevant

stakeholders' concerns. The economic, environmental, and social equity needs of all

communities and parties involved, the Los Angeles water resources management

administrators and policymakers should plan and manage their activities to recognize the

ACF theoretical framework discussed herein.

177

Implications

The present study implications include potential impact for positive social change

at the appropriate individual, family, community, organizational, societal/policy levels

expressed as tangible improvements, and the appropriate methodological and theoretical

implications followed by recommendations for practice.

Methodological and Theoretical Implications

During the Extraction Era, the participants’ perceptions were that Los Angeles

failed to consider public participation, environmental impact, and community equity

issues. The affected communities were not effectively and reasonably involved in the Los

Angeles water resources management operations. These participants’ perceptions

constitute fundamental contributions to designing effective and efficient future Los

Angeles water resources management operation models. In this regard, the present

study’s findings have implications regarding how future research studies may apply the

ACF framework's theoretical foundation in exploring the roles and outcomes of public

participation in water resources management operations in other communities.

Positive Social Change

This study aimed to explore the roles, importance, effectiveness, and outcomes of

public participation in Los Angeles water resources management from the research

volunteering participants' perspectives. Also, the goal is to gain an in-depth

understanding of the challenges that Los Angeles is facing trying to balance the

uncertainties surrounding climate change and the lessening of dependence on imported

water supply while sustainably balancing the economic, environmental, and social equity

178

needs of the community, now and in the future. The goal is to increase awareness of

public participation and suggest how the study participants' lived experience could

inform policy and water infrastructure developments critical to the quality of life of all

Angelinos – Los Angeles residents, businesses, and visitors. Therefore, the knowledge

generated from the present study is expected to inform the re-shaping of Los Angeles

water resources management operation models to holistically protect and promote the

rights, needs, interests, and satisfactions of all relevant stakeholders - social,

environmental, and economic needs of both Los Angeles area communities that receive

and use imported water supply and those communities in faraway regions from where

Los Angeles imports its water supply. The concept of public participation that includes

trusting, early, and sustained involvement and meaningful engagement in equal

collaborative partnership with the communities is a cardinal consideration for Los

Angeles water resources management operations in the future.

Conclusions

The excesses of the extraction era, particularly the hydraulic era, have

undermined Los Angeles water resources management's ability to reliably and

sustainably balance the communities' economic, environmental, and social equity needs

parties involved and created Los Angeles’s dependence on imported water supply. Public

reactions to Extraction Era excesses, primarily in individual and community activism and

advocacy through the courts, have resulted in establishing the present retraction and

refinement era. The era of court-mandated significant retractions or reductions of water

supply that Los Angeles can import and refine o reduce imported water supply by

179

implementing initiatives, including conservation, reuse, recycling, and evaluation of

local water supply sources. It is certain that for the foreseeable future, imported water

supply, however, retracted or reduced it may be, will remain a permanent feature of the

Los Angeles water supply portfolio, and so will be the meaningful public participation

and the equal consideration of the communities’ economic, environmental and social

equity needs, if Los Angeles water resources management is to be reliable and

sustainable over the long term, particularly, given the uncertainties of climate change,

including changing drought conditions.

The findings indicate that public participation plays an important role and

produces effective, desirable outcomes and less unintended consequences in Los Angeles

water resources management. According to Lauer, et al., (2017), Public participation is

important for improving social-ecological systems management, and the lack of public

engagement leads to unintended outcomes. Thus, the present study proposed an

intentional early and sustained engagement of equal collaborative partners of all

concerned to meet the present and future needs of communities in Los Angeles and areas

from where Los Angeles imports its water supply, recognizing the role that the ACF

theory can play, as discussed in this study. This would be a sustainable balance that will

require collective leadership with flexibility, transparency, trust, and consistency to

maintain.

180

References

Ali, A. K. (2005). Using the Delphi technique to search for empirical measures of local

planning agency power. The Qualitative Report, 10(4), 718-744.

https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2005.1829

American Society of Civil Engineers. (2015). Code of ethics.

http://www.asce.org/codeof-ethics/

Antos, M. (2016). Social-ecological and institutional barriers to adaptive water

management [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles].

eScholarship, University of California.

https://escholarship.org/content/qt0gt1n048/qt0gt1n048_noSplash_efaea0d14e26d

0219d7e736fb6d1560f.pdf

Association of California Water Agencies. (2014). Sustainable groundwater management

act of 2014: Fact sheet.

http://www.acwa.com/sites/default/files/post/groundwater/2014/04/2014groundwa

ter-fact-sheet.pdf

Ball, P. (2005). Water and life: Seeking the solution. Nature, 436, 1084-1085.

https://www.doi.org/10.1038/4361084a

Berry, J. M., Portney, K. E., & Thomson, K. (1993). The rebirth of urban democracy.

The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/book/the-rebirth-of-

urbandemocracy/

181

Boyce, C., & Neale, P. (2006). Conducting in-depth interviews: A guide for designing and

conducting in-depth interviews for evaluation input. Pathfinder International.

https://dmeforpeace.org/sites/default/files/Boyce_In%20Depth%20Interviews.pdf

Brause, R. S. (1999). Writing your doctoral dissertation: Invisible rules for success.

Routledge.

Brown, R. (2008). Local institutional development and organizational change for

advancing sustainable urban water futures. Environmental Management, 41(2),

221–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-007-9046-6

Brulle, R. (n.d.). The U.S. environmental movement. Drexel University.

http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~brullerj/Twenty%20Lessons%20in%20Environme

ntal%20Sociology-Brulle.pdf

Bryman, A. (2004). Quantity and quality in social research. Routledge. (Original work

published 1988).

Callahan, D., Wilson, E., Birdsall, I., Estabrook-Fishinghawk, B., Carson, G., Ford, S.,

Ouzts, K., & Yob, I. (2012). Expanding our understanding of social change: A

report from the Definition Task forces of the HLC Special Emphasis Project.

https://my.campuscruiser.com/StreamServlet

Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen participation: Models and methods. International Journal of

Public Administration, 30(11), 1179-1196.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690701225366

• Carlson, A. C. (2009). Gandhi and the comic frame: Ad bellum purification.

182

Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72(4), 446-455.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638609383787 City of Los Angeles. (2015). One

Water LA 2040 plan: Guiding principles report.

https://www.lacitysan.org/cs/groups/public/documents/document/y250/mdew/~ed

isp/cnt010319.pdf

City of Los Angeles Integrated Plan for Wastewater Program. (2001). Summary of the

steering group process and their recommendations for integrated resources

planning policy development.

https://planning.lacity.org/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/M210.pdf

City of Los Angeles Integrated Resources Plan. (n.d.). Integrated Resources Program

(IRP): What is IRP? http://lacitysan.org/irp/About_IRP.htm

City of Los Angeles Integrated Resources Plan. (2006a). City of Los Angeles Integrated

Resources Plan (IRP): A new strategy for Los Angeles’s water infrastructure

information sheet.

https://planning.lacity.org/eir/ConventionCntr/DEIR/files/references/Integrated%

20Resources%20Plan%Fact%20Sheet%202006.pdf

City of Los Angeles Integrated Resources Plan. (2006b). City of Los Angeles Integrated

Resources Plan planning for wastewater, recycled water, and storm water

management: A visionary strategy for the right facilities, in the right places, at the

right time.

183

https://www.lacitysan.org/cs/groups/public/documents/document/y250/mdew/~ed

isp/cnt010372.pdf

Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2014). Thematic analysis. In T. Teo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

critical psychology (pp. 1947-1952). Springer.

Clavier, C., & O’Neill, M. (2017). The role of policy coalitions in understanding

community participation in healthy cities projects. In: de Leeuw E., Simos J.

(eds)

Healthy Cities. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6694-3_14

Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2006). Qualitative Research Guidelines Project.

http://www.qualres.org/

Cortner, H.J. & Moote, M.A. (1994). Trends and issues in land and water resources

management: Setting the agenda for change. Environmental

Management 18, 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02393759

Council for Watershed Health. (2015). Council for watershed health accomplishments:

The formative years. 1995-1996. https://www.watershedhealth.org/our-history

Creswell, J.W. & Creswell, J.D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and

Mixed Methods Approaches, (5th ed). Sage Publications, Inc.

https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/research-design/book255675

Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/22780_Chapter_1.pdf

184

Dallman, S. (2017). Navigating Drought in California: Lessons from DownUnder.

Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers 79, 71-92. .

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/669212/pdf

Dungumaro, E. W. & Madulu, N. F. (2003). Public participation in integrated water

resources management: The case of Tanzania. Physics and Chemistry of the

Earth, Parts A/B/C. 28(20-27), 1009-1014.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2003.08.042.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222407909_Public_participation_in_int

egrated_water_resources_management_The_case_of_Tanzania

European Urban Knowledge Network. (n.d.). What is public participation? Different

levels added values and challenges. https://www.eukn.eu/policy-labs/policy-

labfor-cy-public-participation-in-the-development-

process/generalintroduction/what-is-public-participation/

Feldman, D. L. (2017). The water-sustainable city: Science, policy and practice. Business

& Economics, p 137 to 148. Edward Elgar Publishing

https://www.environmentandurbanization.org/water-sustainable-city-

sciencepolicy-and-practice

Fischer, J., Lindenmayer, D. B., & Manning, A. D. (2006). Biodiversity, ecosystem

function, and resilience: Ten guiding principles for commodity production

landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and The Environment - FRONT ECOL

ENVIRON. 4. 80-86. 10.1890/1540-9295(2006)004[0080:BEFART]2.0.CO;2.

185

Fitzgerald, C., McCarthy, S., Carton, F., O Connor, Y., Lynch, L., & Adam, F. (2016).

Citizen participation in decision-making: Can one make a difference?, Journal of

Decision Systems, 25:sup1, 248-260,

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/12460125.2016.1187395?src=recs

Guest, J. S., Skerlos, S. J., Barnard, J. L., Beck, M. B., Daigger, G. T., Hilger, H., ...

Mihelcic, J. R. (2009). A new planning and design paradigm to achieve

sustainable resource recovery from wastewater 1. Environmental Science &

Technology, 43(16), 6126-6130. https://www.doi.org/doi:10.1021/es9010515

Hanak, E., Lund, J., Dinar, A., Gray, B., Howitt, R., Mount, J., Moyle, P., & Thompson,

B. R. (2011). Managing California’s water: From conflict to reconciliation.

Public Policy Institute of California.

https://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_211EHR.pdf

Kahlke, R. M. (2014). Generic qualitative approaches: Pitfalls and benefits of

methodological mixology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 37–52.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/160940691401300119

Keen, et al. (2018). Qualitative approaches matrix: Chart of frequently-used qualitative

approaches at Walden University. Walden University

Kinsey, D. (1932). The romance of water and power. Los Angeles Department of Water

and Power.

https://scvhistory.com/scvhistory/files/ladwp_kinsey1932/ladwp_kinsey1932.pdf

186

Kiparsky, M. (2014). Mono Lake at 20: Past, present, and future. Legal Planet.

http://legal-planet.org/2014/10/30/mono-lake-at-20-past-present-and-future/

Kiparsky, M., Thompson, B.H., Binz, C., Sedlak, D. L., Tummers, L., & Truffer, B.

(2016). Barriers to innovation in urban wastewater utilities: Attitudes of managers

in California. Environmental Management, 57:(1204).

https://www.doi.org/doi:10.1007/s00267-016-0685-3

Lauer, F. I., Metcalf, A. L., Metcalf, E. C., & Mohr, J. J. (2017). Public Engagement in

Social-Ecological Systems Management: An application of social justice

theory Society & Natural Resources, 31(1), 4-20.

https://www.doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1364456

Laureate Education (Producer). (2010). Dissertation research process [Multimedia

file].

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. (2013a). Facts and figures.

https://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/faces/ladwp/aboutus/a-water/a-

wfactandfigures?_afrLoop=83049335851668&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindo

d=fdxjeds9a_1#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3Dfdxjeds9a_1%26_afrLoop%3D8304

9335851668%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl-state%3D134emoh5bc_4

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. (2013b). The Los Angeles Department of

Water and Power 2013 annual Owens Valley report.

https://www.inyowater.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Final-

187

2013AnnualOVRpt.pdf

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. (2015). Los Angeles Department of Water

and Power 2015 annual Owens Valley report.

https://www.inyowater.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/12/2015-Combined-Files.pdf

Los Angeles Times Editorial Board. (2016). Don’t let California’s water pricing tiers fall.

The Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-

edhillsborough-water-lawsuit-20170101-story.html

Mayor Eric Garcetti, (2015). New groundwater treatment project will help Los Angeles

reduce dependence on imported water.

https://www.lamayor.org/newgroundwater-treatment-project-will-help-la-reduce-

dependence-imported-water

McGuire, D., & Hutchings, K. (2007). Portrait of a transformational leader: The legacy

Dr Martin Luther King Jr. Leadership & Organization Development Journal

28(2). 154-166. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730710726840L

McQuilkin, G. (2011). Stream restoration discussions picking up pace: Implementation

requires answering many, many questions. Mono Lake Newsletter. Summer: 5

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

implementation. John Wiley & Sons.

Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and paradigms regained. Journal of Mixed

Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage

188

Musso, J. & Weare, C. (2017). Social capital and community representation: How

multiform networks promote local democracy in Los Angeles. Urban Studies

Journal Limited, 54(11), 2521–2539. Sage Publications.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0042098016650359

National Society of Professional Engineers. (2016). Code of ethics for professional

engineers. https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics

One Water LA Program. (2015). One Water LA program factsheet: Water, storm water,

wastewater.

http://www.lacitysan.org/irp/OW_Documents/OneWaterLA_Fact_Sheet_2014.pd

One Water LA Program. (2017) One Water LA progress report: A collaborative approach

to integrated water management, LA Sanitation and Environment and LADWP,

City of Los Angeles.

Oregon State University. (2017). Positive Social Change.

http://sli.oregonstate.edu/feature-story/positive-social-change

Orr, S., Ganter, C., & Seebright, J. (2012). Water: Managing world’s most precious

resource, World Economic Forum.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2012/06/water-managing-the-worlds-

mostprecious-resource/

Ostrom, V., & Ostrom, E. (1971). Public choice: Different approach to the study of

public administration. Public Administration Review 13: 203-216.

https://doi.org/10.2307/974676

189

O’Sullivan, E., Rassel, G. R., & Berner, M. (2008). Research methods for public

administrators (5th ed) Pearson, Longman.

Peden, A. (2016). History of Drinking Water in California. Environmental Health

Association 65th Annual Education Symposium presentation.

https://www.neha.org/california-eha-annual-educational-symposium

Pierce, J., Peterson, H., & Hicks, K. (2016). Policy change: An Advocacy Coalition

Framework perspective. European Consortium for Political Research General

Conference, Charles University.

Pincetl, S., Porse, E., & Cheng, D. (2016). Fragmented Flows: Water supply in Los

Angeles County. Environmental Management, 58(2), 208–222.

https://doiorg.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0707-1

Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2015). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual,

theoretical, and methodological. SAGE Publications.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data for

the supporting literature (3rd ed.), Sage.

Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (2015). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive

guide to content and process (4th ed.). Sage.

Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H.C., (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy

coalition approach. Westview Press/.

Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (Eds.). (2014). Theories of the policy process (3rd ed.).

Westview Press.

Serrano, P. C. (2011). California water crisis. Nova Science Publishers.

190

Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J. S., & Jang, Y. S. (Eds.). (2016). Classics of organization theory.

(8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Simon, M. K. (2011). Developing research questions. In Dissertation and scholarly

research: Recipes for success (pp. 1–3). Dissertation Success, LLC

http://dissertationrecipes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Developing-Research-

Questions.pdf

Skelton, G. (2015). Import our water from wetter climes? It is a pipe dream.

http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-cap-drought-20150427-column.html

Stone, C. (2016). Federal spending and the debt limit: Testimony of Chad Stone, Chief

Economist, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, before the Subcommittee on

Oversight and Investigations of the Financial Services Committee U.S. House of

Representatives. : http://www.cbpp.org/federal-budget/federal-spending-and-

thedebt-limit

Swain, D., & Hollar, D. (2003). Measuring progress: Community indicators and the

quality of life. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(7), 789–814.

US EPA, Office of Water (2008). Handbook for developing watershed plans to restore

and protect our waters. https://www.epa.gov/nps/handbook-

developingwatershed-plans-restore-and-protect-our-waters

University of West Florida, Academic Technology Center. (n.d.). Bloom’s taxonomy of

critical thinking and writing effective learning objectives/outcomes.

http://www.sandiego.edu/cas/documents/assessment/UsingBloomsTaxonomyforL

earningOutcomes.pdf

191

U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). State and county quikfacts.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06037.html

Walden University. (2014). Matrix: Preparing Walden learners for social change. Walden

University.

Walden University Catalog. (2012).

http://catalog.waldenu.edu/content.php?catoid=61&navoid=9236

Walden University, Center for Research Quality. (2012). Ph.D. dissertation process and

documents. http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/researchcenter/osra/phd and

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4XiaHN6ICGIN3ZpRV9MQ0xmZ1E/view Walden

University, Institutional Review Board. (2013). When to seek IRB guidance

`early: Studies with sensitive topics and vulnerable populations benefit from early

ethics consultation.

Walden University Library, (2015). Databases by name.

http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php

Walden University Library, (2018). Databases az.

http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php

Walden University, Online Writing Center. (n.d.). Literature reviews.

wastewater.

http://www.lacitysan.org/irp/OW_Documents/OneWaterLA_Fact_Sheet_2014.pd

192

Wang, K. (2017). Integrated water resources management and modeling for

decisionmaking at the river basin scale: A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Water Resources

Engineering. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of

Alberta, https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/3375d69a-3de3-480f-b108-

7533850db8d6

Water LA Report. (2018). Water LA Report: Water LA capture, conserve, reuse. A report

by The River Project.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a21b552bce176df59bb9c8e/t/5a95af0c914

0b74923e2a0fb/1519759148508/WaterLA_Report_022318_web.pdf

Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., Jenkins‐Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Henry, A. D. and

deLeon, P. (2011). A quarter century of the advocacy coalition framework: An

introduction to the special issue. Policy Studies Journal, 39: 349-360.

https://www.doi.org/10.111/j.1541-0072.2011.00412.x

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future,

Oxford University Press.

Water Education Foundation, 2016. Pueblo water rights.

http://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia/pueblo-water-rights

Yob, I., Lao, T., Uldall, B., Crum, M. B., Clay, O., Brock, N., Dixon-Saxon, S.

(2014). Matrix: Preparing Walden learners for social change. Walden University.

193

Yu, Z. L. T., DeShazo, J. R., Stenstrom, M. K., & Cohen, Y. (2014). Cost-benefit analysis

of onsite residential graywater recycling – a case study: The City of Los

Angeles. Luskin Center for Innovation, UCLA.

http://innovation.luskin.ucla.edu/print/7650

Public Participation in Los Angeles Water Resources Management

Students also viewed