Urban regions derive social and economic benefits as local governments supply water and wastewater services. We analyse differences in water and wastewater spending programmes in US city-regions. The municipal provision of water and wastewater services is situated in a regional context, examining how cities respond to different needs for services within regions. We use pooled data from 2002 to 2017 to examine changes in municipal water and wastewater expenditures. Our central finding is that water and wastewater programmes vary considerably across city-regions. Additional findings are that the municipal provision of these programmes appears to be correlated with the interaction between adjacent cities and changes to their jurisdictional boundaries. City governments may adapt their allocation of resources to water and wastewater functions according to the regional conditions surrounding city jurisdictions. This article connects theories of boundary change with systems of interlocal cooperation that support water and wastewater functions in urban regions.
AltshulerAMorrillWWolmanH, et al. (eds) (1999) Governance and Opportunity in Metropolitan America. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
2.
AndersonM (2014) The new minimal cities. The Yale Law Journal123: 1118–1227.
3.
AndrewsREntwistleT (2014) Public Service Efficiency: Reframing the Debate. New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
AraralEWangY (2013) Water governance 2.0: A review and second generation research agenda. Water Resources Management27(11): 3945–3957.
5.
BelGWarnerME (2015) Inter-municipal cooperation and costs: Expectations and evidence. Public Administration93(1): 52–67.
6.
BenitoBGuillamónMDBastidaF (2015) Public versus private in municipal services management. Lex Localis: Journal of Local Self-Government13(4): 995–1018.
7.
BergSMarquesR (2011) Quantitative studies of water and sanitation utilities: A benchmarking literature survey. Water Policy13(5): 591–606.
8.
BrennerN (2002) Decoding the newest ‘metropolitan regionalism’ in the USA: A critical overview. Cities19(1): 3–21.
9.
BrownTPotoskiM (2003) Transaction costs and institutional explanations for government service production decisions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory13(4): 441–468.
10.
Bureau of Economic Analysis (2001–2016) Local area gross domestic product. Available at: https://www.bea.gov (accessed 21 July 2020).
11.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2000–2017) Consumer price index. Available at: https://www.bls.gov (accessed 27 March 2018).
12.
CameronACMillerDL (2015) A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. Journal of Human Resources50(2): 317–372.
13.
CarrJ (2004) Whose game do we play? Local government boundary change and metropolitan governance. In: FeiockR (ed.) Metropolitan Governance: Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 212–239.
14.
CastroJHellerL (2012) Water and Wastewater Services: Public Policy and Management. London: Earthscan.
15.
Census Bureau (1987–2017) Census of Governments. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.
16.
Census Bureau (1988–2017) Boundary and Annexation Surveys. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.
17.
Census Bureau (2000) Census of Population and Housing. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.
18.
Census Bureau (2007–2017) American Community Surveys. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.
19.
ChavezMPérez GabaldónMTuneyC, et al. (2017) Dilution of accountability and transparency in the Flint water crisis: A case of institutional implosion. Norteamerica12: 11–52.
20.
CutlerDMillerG (2006) Water, water, everywhere: Municipal finance and water supply in American cities. In: GlaeserEGoldinC (eds) Corruption and Reform: Lessons From America’s Economic History. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 153–186.
21.
DaleyDMMullinMRubadoME (2014) State agency discretion in a delegated federal program: Evidence from drinking water investment. Publius: The Journal of Federalism44(4): 564–586.
22.
DavisJ (2005) Private-sector participation in the water and sanitation sector. Annual Review of Environment and Resources30: 145–183.
23.
DennisEMBrondizioE (2020) Problem framing influences linkages among networks of collective action situations for water provision, wastewater, and water conservation in a metropolitan region. International Journal of the Commons14(1): 313–328.
24.
DeslatteAFeiockRC (2019) The collaboration riskscape: Fragmentation, problem types and preference divergence in urban sustainability. Publius: The Journal of Federalism49(2): 352–377.
25.
DrewJKorttMADolleryB (2017) No Aladdin’s cave in New South Wales? Local government amalgamation, scale economies, and data envelopment analysis specification. Administration & Society49(10): 1450–1470.
26.
DurstNJ (2018) Racial gerrymandering of municipal borders: Direct democracy, participatory democracy, and voting rights in the United States. Annals of the American Association of Geographers108(4): 938–954.
27.
EdwardsMXiaoY (2009) Annexation, local government spending, and the complicating role of density. Urban Affairs Review45(2): 147–165.
28.
FacerRL (2006) Annexation activity and state law in the United States. Urban Affairs Review41(5): 697–709.
29.
FarmerSPoulosCD (2019) The financialising local growth machine in Chicago. Urban Studies56(7): 1404–1425.
30.
FaustKMAbrahamDMDeLaurentisD (2017) Coupled human and water infrastructure systems sector interdependencies: Framework evaluating the impact of cities experiencing urban decline. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management143(8): 04017043.
31.
FeingoldDKoopSvan LeeuwenK (2018) The city blueprint approach: Urban water management and governance in cities in the US. Environmental Management61(1): 9–23.
32.
FiorinoDJ (2010) Sustainability as a conceptual focus for public administration. Public Administration Review70: s78–s88.
33.
FrèreQLeprinceMPatyS (2014) The impact of intermunicipal cooperation on local public spending. Urban Studies51(8): 1741–1760.
34.
FriskenFNorrisDF (2001) Regionalism reconsidered. Journal of Urban Affairs23(5): 467–478.
35.
FrumkinPGalaskiewiczJ (2004) Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory14(3): 283–307.
36.
GirthAMHefetzAJohnstonJM, et al. (2012) Outsourcing public service delivery: Management responses in noncompetitive markets. Public Administration Review72(6): 887–900.
37.
GoodmanCB (2019) Local government fragmentation: What do we know?State and Local Government Review51(2): 134–144.
38.
GordonT (2012) Addressing local fiscal disparities. In: BrooksNDonaghyKKnaapG (eds) Oxford Handbook of Urban Economics and Planning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 730–754.
39.
GrossmanGPierskallaJHBoswell DeanE (2017) Government fragmentation and public goods provision. The Journal of Politics79(3): 823–840.
40.
HamiltonDKMillerDYPaytasJ (2004) Exploring the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the governing of metropolitan regions. Urban Affairs Review40(2): 147–182.
41.
HargroveWLJuárez-CarilloPMKorcM (2015) Healthy Vinton: A health impact assessment focused on water and sanitation in a small rural town on the U.S.–Mexico border. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health12(4): 3864–3888.
42.
HawkinsCV (2010) Competition and cooperation: Local government joint ventures for economic development. Journal of Urban Affairs32(2): 253–275.
43.
HendrickRShiY (2015) Macro-level determinants of local government interaction: How metropolitan regions in the United States compare. Urban Affairs Review51(3): 414–438.
44.
HuiIUlibarriNCainB (2020) Patterns of participation and representation in a regional water collaboration. Policy Studies Journal48: 754–781.
45.
JimenezBS (2014) Separate, unequal, and ignored? Interjurisdictional competition and the budgetary choices of poor and affluent municipalities. Public Administration Review74(2): 246–257.
46.
JoaquinMEGreitensTJ (2012) Contract management capacity breakdown? An analysis of US local governments. Public Administration Review72(6): 807–816.
47.
Joassart-MarcelliPMussoJ (2005) Municipal service provision choices within a metropolitan area. Urban Affairs Review40(4): 492–519.
48.
KenyonDKincaidJ (eds) (1991) Competition Among States and Local Governments: Efficiency and Equity in American Federalism. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
49.
KneeseA (2011) The Economics of Regional Water Quality Management. New York, NY: RFF Press.
50.
KoontzTMSteelmanTACarminJ, et al. (2004) Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government? Washington, DC: RFF Press.
51.
KoppenjanJFMEnserinkB (2009) Public–private partnerships in urban infrastructures: Reconciling private sector participation and sustainability. Public Administration Review69(2): 284–296.
52.
KruegerSBernickEM (2010) State rules and local governance choices. Publius: The Journal of Federalism40(4): 697–718.
53.
KwonSWFeiockRC (2010) Overcoming the barriers to cooperation: Intergovernmental service agreements. Public Administration Review70(6): 876–884.
54.
León-MoretaA (2021) Ballot measures for open space conservation: Economic and institutional processes in cities. Urban Affairs Review57(3): 675–708.
55.
LeRouxKBrandenburgerPWPandeySK (2010) Interlocal service cooperation in US cities: A social network explanation. Public Administration Review70(2): 268–278.
56.
LevinJTadelisS (2010) Contracting for government services: Theory and evidence from US cities. Journal of Industrial Economics58(3): 507–541.
57.
LiHWeiYDSwertsE (2020) Spatial inequality in the city-regions in the Yangtze River Valley, China. Urban Studies57(3): 672–689.
58.
LongSFreeseJ (2014) Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata. 3rd edn.College Station, TX: Stata Press.
59.
MachadoJParentePSantos SilvaJ (2020) QREG2: Stata Module to Perform Quantile Regression with Robust and Clustered Standard Errors. Boston, MA: Statistical Software Components S457369, Boston College.
60.
MacKinnonDCumbersAPikeA, et al. (2009) Evolution in economic geography: Institutions, political economy, and adaptation. Economic Geography85(2): 129–150.
61.
MukhijaVMasonDR (2013) Reluctant cities, colonias and municipal underbounding in the US: Can cities be convinced to annex poor enclaves?Urban Studies50(14): 2959–2975.
62.
MullinM (2009) Governing the Tap: Special District Governance and the New Local Politics of Water. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
63.
OakersonRJParksRB (2011) The study of local public economies: Multi-organizational, multi-level institutional analysis and development. Policy Studies Journal39(1): 147–167.
PalmerJLLindseyG (2001) Classifying state approaches to annexation. State and Local Government Review33(1): 60–73.
66.
ParksRBOakersonRJ (2000) Regionalism, localism, and metropolitan governance: Suggestions from the research program on local public economies. State and Local Government Review32(3): 169–179.
PetersenOHHoulbergKChristensenLR (2015) Contracting out local services: A tale of technical and social services. Public Administration Review75(4): 560–570.
69.
PhelpsNAWoodAM (2011) The new post-suburban politics?Urban Studies48(12): 2591–2610.
70.
PollittMGSteerSJ (2012) Economies of scale and scope in network industries: Lessons for the UK water and sewerage sectors. Utilities Policy21: 17–31.
71.
PorcherSSaussierS (eds) (2019) Facing the Challenges of Water Governance. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
72.
RhodePWStrumpfKS (2003) Assessing the importance of Tiebout sorting: Local heterogeneity from 1850 to 1990. American Economic Review93(5): 1648–1677.
73.
RiceKTWaldnerLSSmithRM (2014) Why new cities form: An examination into municipal incorporation in the United States 1950–2010. Journal of Planning Literature29(2): 140–154.
74.
RoegerATavaresAF (2018) Water safety plans by utilities: A review of research on implementation. Utilities Policy53: 15–24.
75.
RuskD (2013) Cities Without Suburbs: A Census 2010 Perspective. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
76.
SavitchHVAdhikariS (2017) Fragmented regionalism: Why metropolitan America continues to splinter. Urban Affairs Review53(2): 381–402.
77.
ScottTAMoldogazievTGreerRA (2018) Drink what you can pay for: Financing infrastructure in a fragmented water system. Urban Studies55(13): 2821–2837.
78.
SmithR (2018) Municipal Incorporation Activity in the United States. Cham: Springer.
79.
SmithRMAfonsoWB (2016) Fiscal impact of annexation methodology on municipal finances in North Carolina. Growth and Change47(4): 664–681.
80.
SteinR (1990) Urban Alternatives. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
81.
SullivanR (2019) Valuable Partnerships: Cooperation, Innovation, and the Future of Municipal Texas. Eugene, OR: Resource Publications.
82.
SwitzerDTeodoroMP (2018) Class, race, ethnicity, and justice in safe drinking water compliance. Social Science Quarterly99(2): 524–535.
83.
TeafordJ (2019) Post-Suburbia: Government and Politics in the Edge Cities. Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins University Press.
84.
ThurmaierKWoodC (2004) Interlocal agreements as an alternative to consolidation. In: CarrJFeiockR (eds) City-County Consolidation and Its Alternatives: Reshaping the Local Government Landscape. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 113–130.
85.
United States Geological Survey (2000–2015) Estimated Use of Water in the United States. Reston, VA: Department of Interior.
86.
WaldnerLStilwellKSmithRM (2019) Wither or thrive: Post hoc municipal incorporation outcomes in new cities of color. Journal of Urban Affairs41(6): 821–841.
87.
WangJGorinaE (2018) Fiscal effects of municipal annexation: Evidence from a large national sample of urban municipalities. Growth and Change49(4): 612–635.
88.
WarnerMEHefetzA (2012) Insourcing and outsourcing: The dynamics of privatization among US municipalities 2002–2007. Journal of the American Planning Association78(3): 313–327.
89.
WheelandCMPalusCKWoodC (2014) A century of municipal reform in the United States. The American Review of Public Administration44(4 Suppl): 11S–28S.
90.
WooldridgeJ (2010) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. 2nd edn.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
