Research on urban service delivery strategies lacks a multilevel approach able to account for the influence of authority structures on effective reform. A comparative analysis of efforts to increase recycled wastewater production in the United States (specifically California) and Australia is used to evaluate the effectiveness of centralized and decentralized urban governance systems in reform efforts and, more importantly, the institutional and political mechanisms underlying these differences. The results show that Australia, with a more centralized system, has more effectively set and implemented an urban water governance agenda that includes recycled urban wastewater. However, in both places local resistance has been a barrier to effective change. These findings demonstrate that reform capacity and policy success may differ between governance systems while common barriers and political dynamics persist.
AllisonL.TierneyJ.LundyK.MackayS.TchenT.WongP.2002. The value of water: Inquiry into Australia’s management of urban water. Report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and Arts Reference Committee. Canberra: Parliament of Australia. http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/ecita_ctte/water/report/.
4.
AndersonJ.2003. The environmental benefits of water recycling and reuse. Water Science & Technology: Water Supply3 (4): 1-10.
5.
AngelakisA. N.BontouxL.LazarovaV.2003. Challenges and prospectives for water recycling and reuse in EU countries. Water Science & Technology3 (4): 59-68.
6.
AsanoTakashi. 2002. Water from (waste) water: The dependable resource. Water Science & Technology45 (8): 8-24.
7.
AshworthRachelBoyneGeorge A.WalkerRichard M.2002. Regulatory problems in the public sector: Theories and cases. Policy & Politics30 (2): 195-211.
8.
Australian Academy of Technological Science and Engineering. 2004. Water recycling in Australia. Parkville, Victoria: ATSE.
AzfarOmarKahkonenSatuLanyiAnthonyMeagherPatrickRutherfordDiana. 2004. Decentralization, governance and public services: The impact of institutional arrangements. In Devolution and development: Governance prospects in decentralizing states, edited by KimenyiMwangi S.MeagherPatrick, 19-62. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
12.
BARWC. 2010. Bay Area recycled water coalition project summary. Antioch, CA: BARWC.
13.
BasoloVictoriaScallyCorianne P.2008. State innovations in affordable housing policy: Lessons from California and New Jersey. Housing Policy Debate19 (4): 741-74.
14.
BatterburySimon P. J.FernandoJude L.2006. Rescaling governance and the impacts of political and environmental decentralization: An introduction. World Development34 (11): 1851–63. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.11.019.
15.
BernardH. Russell. 2000. Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
BerryChristopher. 2008. Piling on: Multilevel government and the fiscal common-pool. American Journal of Political Science52 (4): 802-20. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00344.x.
17.
BrennerNeil. 2009. Open questions on state rescaling. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society2 (1): 123-39. doi:10.1093/cjres/rsp002.
18.
BrodySamuel D.ZahranSammyGroverHimanshuVedlitzArnold. 2008. A spatial analysis of local climate change policy in the United States: Risk, stress, and opportunity. Landscape and Urban Planning87 (1): 33-41. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.04.003.
19.
BulkeleyHarrietBetsillMichele M.2005. Rethinking sustainable cities: Multilevel governance and the “urban” politics of climate change. Environmental Politics14 (1): 42-63.
20.
ByrnesJoelCraseLinDolleryBrian. 2006. Regulation versus pricing in urban water policy: The case of the Australian National Water Initiative. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics50 (3): 437-49.
California Department of Water Resources. 2009. California water plan update 2009. Sacramento, CA: Department of Water Resources.
23.
California Recycled Water Task Force. 2003. Water recycling 2030. Sacramento, CA: Department of Water Resources.
24.
CodyBetsy A.FolgerPeterBrougherCynthia. 2009. California drought: Hydrological and regulatory water supply issues. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
25.
Commonwealth of Australia. 2004. Intergovernmental agreement on a National Water Initiative. Turner, Australian Capital Territory: National Water Commission, Australian Government.
26.
DahlRobert A.1994. A democratic dilemma: System effectiveness versus citizen participation. Political Science Quarterly109 (1): 23-34.
Department of Water, Land, and Biodiversity Conservation. 2004. Water proofing Adelaide: A thirst for change, 2005-2025. Adelaide: Government of South Australia.
29.
DietzThomasOstromElinorSternPaul C.2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science302 (5652): 1907-12. doi:10.1126/science.1091015.
ErnstonHenrikBarthelStephanAnderssonE.BorgstromSara. 2010. Scale-crossing brokers and network governance of urban ecosystem services: The case of Stockholm. Ecology and Society15 (4): 28.
32.
GleickPeter H.2003. Global freshwater resources: Soft-path solutions for the 21st century. Science302 (5650): 1524-28. doi:10.1126/science.1089967.
33.
GrahamStephenMarvinSimon. 2001. Splintering urbanism: Networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition. London: Routledge.
34.
GustavssonEvaElanderIngemarLundmarkMats. 2009. Multilevel governance, networking cities, and the geography of climate-change mitigation: Two Swedish examples. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy27: 59-74.
35.
HalliganJohnPowerJohn. 1992. Political management in the 1990s. Melbourne: Oxford Univ. Press.
36.
HanakEllen. 2005. Water for growth: California’s new frontier. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.
37.
HoogheLiesbetMarksGary. 2003. Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review97 (2): 233-43.
Howell-MoroneyMichael. 2008. The tiebout hypothesis 50 years later: Lessons and lingering challenges for metropolitan governance in the 21st century. Public Administration Review68 (1): 97-109. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00840.x.
40.
HuitemaDaveMeijerinkSander. 2009. Water policy entrepreneurs: A research companion to water transitions around the globe. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
41.
HundleyNorrisJr.2001. The great thirst: Californians and water: A history. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California Press.
42.
HunterTarynWahquistCalla. 2009. Melbourne to drink recycled sewage. Reportage, December2, sec. Environment.
43.
HusseyKarenDoversStephen. 2007. Managing water for Australia: The social and institutional challenges. Collingwood, Victoria, Australia: CSIRO.
44.
KingGaryKeohaneRobert O.VerbaSidney. 1994. Designing social inquiry: Scientific Inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
45.
KraneDaleEbdonCarolBartleJohn. 2004. Devolution, fiscal federalism, and changing patterns of municipal revenues: The mismatch between theory and reality. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory14 (4): 513-33.
46.
LandisJohn D.ReillyMichael. 2004. How we will grow: Baseline projections of the growth of California’s urban footprint through the year 2100. Working paper 2003-04. Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Univ. of California, Berkeley.
47.
LubellMarkFeiockRichard C.RamirezEdgar. 2005. Political institutions and conservation by local governments. Urban Affairs Review40 (6): 706-29. doi:10.1177/1078087404274137.
48.
LundqvistLennart J.von BorgstedeChris. 2008. Whose responsibility? Swedish local decision makers and the scale of climate change abatement. Urban Affairs Review43 (3): 299-324. doi:10.1177/1078087407304689
49.
MacioccoGiovanniTagliagambeSilvanoMacioccoGiovanniTagliagambeSilvano. 2009. The local-supralocal relationship. People and Space5: 77–82. Urban and Landscape Perspectives. Springer Netherlands.
50.
MarksJune S.ZadoroznyjMaria. 2005. Managing sustainable urban water reuse: Structural context and cultures of trust. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal18 (6): 557-72.
McGranahanGordonSatterthwaiteDavid. 2003. Urban centers: An assessment of sustainability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources28 (1): 243-74.
53.
McKayJennifer. 2005. Water institutional reforms in Australia. Water Policy7: 35-52.
54.
Melbourne Water. 2005. Water supply-demand strategy for Melbourne 2006-2055. Melbourne: Government of Victoria.
55.
MilkovichBarbara A.2003. A history of orange county water district. Fountain Valley, CA: Orange County Water District.
56.
MossTimothyNewigJens. 2010. Multilevel water governance and problems of scales: Setting the stage for a broader debate. Environmental Management46 (1): 1-6.
57.
MullinMegan. 2009. Governing the tap: Special district governance and the new local politics of water. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
NovotnyVladimirBrownPaul. 2007. Cities of the future: Towards integrated sustainable water and landscape management. London: International Water Association.
63.
OkunDaniel A.2000. The conservation of water through wastewater reclamation and urban nonpotable reuse. In Water management, purification & conservation in arid climates. Lancaster: Technomic Publishing.
64.
OlssonPerGundersonLance H.CarpenterSteve R.RyanPaulLebelLouisFolkeCarlHollingC. S.2006. Shooting the rapids: Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society11 (1): 18.
65.
OstromVincentOstromElinor. 1971. Public choice: A different approach to the study of public administration. Public Administration Review31 (2): 203-16.
66.
PartzschLena. 2009. Smart regulation for water innovation—The case of decentralized rainwater technology. Journal of Cleaner Production17 (11): 985-91. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.01.009.
67.
PecarichFrank. 2007. Beware the recycled water industry on water safety and E. coli in California. California Progress Report, June20. www.californiaprogressreport.com.
PollittChristopherBouckaertGeert. 2000. Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press.
71.
RadcliffeJohn. 2006. Future directions for water recycling in Australia. Desalination187: 77-87.
72.
van RoonMarjorie. 2007. Water localisation and reclamation: Steps towards low impact urban design and development. Journal of Environmental Management83 (4): 437-447. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.04.008.
73.
RothsteinBo. 1996. Political institutions: An overview. In A new handbook of political science. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
74.
SagerFritz. 2004. Metropolitan institutions and policy coordination: The integration of land use and transportation policies in Swiss urban areas. Governance18 (2): 227-56.
75.
SellersJefferey M.2002. The Nation-State and Urban Governance. Urban Affairs Review37 (5): 611-41. doi:10.1177/107808740203700501.
76.
SellersJefferey M.LidstromAnders. 2007. Decentralization, local government, and the welfare state. Governance20 (4): 609-32.
77.
SharpElaine B.DaleyDorothy M.LynchMichael S.2011. Understanding local adoption and implementation of climate change mitigation policy. Urban Affairs Review47 (3): 433-457. doi:10.1177/1078087410392348.
78.
SmithDavid Ingle. 1998. Water in Australia: Resources and management. Melbourne: Oxford Univ. Press.
StilwellFrankTroyPatrick. 2000. Multilevel governance and urban development in Australia. Urban Studies37 (5-6): 909-30. doi:10.1080/00420980050011154.
81.
Sydney Water. 2010. 2010 metropolitan water plan. Sydney: Government of New South Wales.
82.
ThomasJean-SebastienDurhamBruce. 2003. Integrated water management: Looking at the whole picture. Desalination1 (56): 21-28.
83.
TsebelisGeorge. 2002. Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
