Drinking Wastewater

Abstract

In the coming decades, highly treated wastewater, known as reclaimed water, is slated to be a major element of municipal water supplies. In particular, planners propose supplementing drinking water with reclaimed water as a sustainable solution to the growing challenge of urban water scarcity. Public opposition is currently considered the primary barrier to implementing successful potable water reuse projects; nonetheless, public responses to reclaimed water are not well understood. Based on a survey of over 250 residents of Tucson, Arizona, this article assesses the relationship between trust in the professional institutions responsible for municipal water development and willingness to drink reclaimed water. Results demonstrate that public acceptance of potable reuse is contingent on trust in the authorities who influence design of sociotechnical systems for water supply and reuse—including water and wastewater utilities, regulators, consultants, academics, and elected local officials. Findings emphasize the highly interdependent social and political factors that inform personal decisions to support or reject potable reuse. The authors suggest that achieving greater acceptance of potable reuse will require bringing local and regional water policy in line with public values, as well as finding ways to incorporate these values into the planning process.

Keywords

politics power governance expertise environmental practices

Introduction

In the last quarter of the twentieth century, persistent threats of physical water scarcity in areas with established water and sewage treatment facilities prompted a shift in conventional thinking, from wastewater treatment and disposal, to wastewater treatment and reuse. Today, state-of-the-art treatment technologies produce reclaimed water that meets national drinking water standards. Water planners in the United States and Australia are increasingly interested in potable reuse to meet the serious supply challenges of the twenty-first century (National Research Council 2012; Rodriguez et al. 2009). Wastewater, after treatment to a water quality that makes it useable again, is commonly known as reclaimed water. The process known as indirect potable reuse (IPR) blends reclaimed water with conventional drinking water supplies indirectly—through an “environmental buffer” such as a lake or groundwater aquifer—before extracting, treating/retreating, and delivering the blended supply to residents. Since treated wastewater is often discharged into rivers or streams that serve as the source waters for downstream communities, unplanned, de facto IPR has long been practiced in cities dependent on surface water supplies (National Research Council 2012). Nonetheless, communities generally resist intentionally planned potable reuse projects.

Public opposition is currently considered the greatest obstacle to successful potable reuse projects (Bridgeman 2004; Bruvold, Olson, and Rigby 1981; Dolnicar and Saunders 2006; Jansen, Stenstrom, and deKoning 2007). And while not a common practice, IPR has been effectively implemented in a number of cities (Rodriguez et al. 2009; Sala and Serra 2004). The most celebrated and technologically advanced IPR project in the United States is Water Factory 21 in Orange County, California. The reclaimed water produced at the factory meets drinking water standards through advanced treatment processes of reverse osmosis and activated carbon adsorption, and currently serves over two million customers. In spite of the success of IPR in Orange County, the nearby cities of San Diego and Los Angeles have both rejected IPR proposals (Royte 2008). Indeed, public attitudes toward reclaimed water have been found to be community-specific and responsive to local context, including physical geography and regional circumstance (e.g., arid climate, or perceptions of existing water quality and water availability) (Friedler and Lahav 2006; Khan and Gerrard 2006). Whether other communities will accept, or reject, planned IPR projects remains a critical uncertainty for water planners.

The standard explanation for public resistance to potable reuse projects is the “yuck factor”—or the feeling of dread and disgust that is associated with drinking wastewater (Parkinson 2008; Royte 2008; Schmidt 2008; Spiegel 2011). Contrary to conventional explanations, which focus on psychological aversion, we argue public opposition to reclaimed water is based on social and cultural perceptions of risk. In this article, we explicitly consider how public opinion of IPR is mediated by trust in the institutions responsible for guiding the course of municipal water development in Tucson, Arizona. Here, as in many parts of the world, wastewater is an increasingly sought after water resource (Poole 2008; National Research Council 2012; Scott and Raschid-Sally 2012). Although the crucial role of trust in shaping public perceptions is widely accepted, few studies evaluate this claim empirically, or put public perceptions in their social context as we do below.

The article is organized as follows. We first situate our theoretical approach in the context of social and cultural theories of risk, technological systems, and expert trust as it relates to water development and reclaimed water planning. Next, we present results of our quantitative and qualitative analyses of surveyed opinions of reclaimed water and IPR to demonstrate that potable reuse is a politicized issue, where expressed concerns reflect social values more complicated than simple revulsion. Finally, we discuss our results as they pertain to public perception of complex technological risks and IPR projects more generally and conclude with implications for theory in other contexts.

System Momentum, Public Perception, and Trust

When considering public opposition, previous research has largely relied on psychological explanations for public objections (Russell and Lux 2009), for example, disgust associated with drinking treated sewage (Dingfelder 2004; Parkinson 2008; Schmidt 2008). By describing differences between expert and lay views as real versus perceived (or objective vs. subjective), much of the research on public perceptions of reclaimed water suggests policy responses aimed at bringing public opinion in line with expert judgment (e.g., marketing, communication, and educational strategies; Dingfelder 2004; Dolnicar and Saunders 2006; Khan and Gerrard 2006). Consequently, psychological explanations geared toward public acceptance methodologically reinforce hierarchical technocratic decision making. This literature rarely examines the social context that shapes individual perceptions, an area of enquiry that will be further developed here.

Social and cultural theories maintain that risk perception is a culturally standardized response. In other words, how we develop notions of riskiness is a collective process in which individuals can assess the same dangers and come to different evaluations based on socially constructed biases and underlying cultural structures (Bickerstaff and Walker 2003; Douglas 1992; Freudenburg and Pastor 1992; Short 1984). Cultural theory of risk maintains that social groups (or cultures) differ in their understanding of risk based on implicit differences in experience and identity; some risks are recognized while others are suppressed, depending on underlying assumptions, moral values, and ideas about order. The risks identified as “acceptable” by scientists, shaped in part by professional training (Sims and Baumann 1976), are different from those identified as “acceptable” by members of the community because each group employs different rationalities, norms, and beliefs when evaluating risk (Douglas 1992; Tulloch and Lupton 2003).

Among theories regarding social studies of technological systems, there is tension between viewing systems as obdurate and persistent (Hommels 2005) or emphasizing the malleability and instability of such systems (Furlong 2010). We employ Hughes’ concepts of system momentum and reverse salient along with Murdoch’s (1998) concepts of spaces of prescription and spaces of negotiation.

Hughes, a historian of technology, theorized technological innovation with a systems metaphor—systems are broadly defined to include physical materials, organizations, legislative artifacts, and “components usually labeled scientific, such as books, articles, and university teaching and research programs” (Hughes 1987, 51). Hughes used the concept of “system momentum” to describe how large systems, with their supportive context of institutions, become sociotechnical supersystems with “mass movement and direction” (Hughes 1983, 140). The concept of system momentum helps to explain how mature technological systems—infrastructures such as power networks and urban waterworks—share characteristics of stability. A reverse salient occurs when components of the system fall behind or out of line, which then threatens or thwarts system continuity. The sociotechnical systems we focus on here are the water and sewer systems in Tucson, part of the intensively “managed” Colorado River system. The technoscientific management of the system has thus far delivered reliable and repeated service (Sax et al. 2006). As the following sections demonstrate, technological controversies, like IPR, disrupt normal processes and provide a unique methodological opportunity to examine public perceptions of large-scale systematic risks.

Engineers and water planners in general agree wastewater reclamation is a technically safe and feasible way to expand municipal water supplies (National Research Council 2012; Rodriguez et al. 2009; Sala and Serra 2004). A reverse salient, such as public opposition to IPR, impedes continued system growth and therefore effectively becomes defined as a key problem to be solved. Alternately, this concept can be recast as “path creation,” which draws attention to human creativity in “trying to solve the critical problems around a technology in order to maintain its path” (Pinch 2001, 398). In this way, both reverse salient and path creation emphasize maintenance of system momentum.

Spaces of prescription emerge from stable networks, which exhibit the “soft determinism” of systems with high momentum and share the characteristic of seeming irreversibility. Such spaces are rigid, predictable, “heavy with norms,” and standardization, all of which allows them to become durable over time. Infrastructures, like highways and waterworks, are spaces of prescription because they regularize, or script, behaviors. Although they do allow people to go off script, they are technologies rarely left open for renegotiation. On the other hand, spaces of negotiation are fluid, full of variation, unstable, interactive, and allow for flexibility and higher levels of autonomy. Spaces of prescription and negotiation act in tension with each other, they shade into one another in such a way that “differing spaces can emerge from within the same network” (Murdoch 1998, 364, emphasis in original). This relational view of space stresses that space can be folded, concentrating complex space-time configurations into networks that are structural (durable) and translational (negotiable; Murdoch 1998).

The specific importance of trust has been frequently identified as a factor in determining public acceptance of risks generally (Douglas 1992; Short 1984; Slovic 1987) and of water reuse specifically (Hartley 2006; Khan and Gerrard 2006; Marks 2006; Marks, Martin, and Zadoroznyj 2008). Social–cultural approaches to risk stress that trust in experts, authorities, and scientific knowledge is paramount to understanding public acceptance of technological hazards. Technological risks, such as IPR projects, are often understood as distinct from other types of hazards, like natural disasters, because they clearly involve choice. Therefore, technological risk judgments can be considered de facto matters both of political authority and of expert legitimacy (Douglas 1992; Freudenburg and Pastor 1992) and the level of public acceptance can be considered “a function of the degree to which the institutions which are responsible for the assessment and management of risks are trusted” (Short 1984, 714). Since IPR projects involve precisely the types of choices that are based on the relative power of the general public compared to the power of professionals involved in water planning (e.g., largely a space of prescription), we argue that social–cultural factors relative to risk perception present an alternative explanation for public opposition to IPR. In addition to our commitment to this approach, recent literature on public responses to reclaimed water rejects psychological aversion as the determinative factor for lack of acceptance and calls for more social–cultural investigations regarding the nature of public understandings (Marks, Martin, and Zadoroznyj 2008; Russell and Lux 2009; Stenekes et al. 2006).

Considering IPR in Context: The Case of Tucson, Arizona

Tucson, the second largest city in Arizona, is located in the Lower Colorado River Basin—with an arid climate, ancient groundwater aquifers, and rates of water use that exceed annual renewable supplies. Like other cities in the Lower Colorado region, Tucson is projected to face a water supply shortfall in the coming decades (Poole 2008; US DOI 2003). Tucson Water, the municipal utility,¹ currently serves roughly 800,000 customers. The potable system relies on a combination of imported Colorado River supplies, brought in via the immense Central Arizona Project (CAP) and largely nonrenewable groundwater. The CAP is a series of aqueducts, canals, pipelines, and pumping plants that move Colorado River water 336 miles southeast and uphill 2,400 vertical feet to numerous urban and agricultural water users before reaching its terminus in Tucson. When CAP supplies arrived in Tucson in the early 1990s, the higher mineral content of the Colorado River water, when transported through the city’s aging network of pipes, led to multiple unexpected water quality problems. The debacle ultimately led to a successful ballot initiative that banned the direct delivery of CAP supplies forcing the utility to recharge CAP water into the local aquifers before delivery (Tucson Water 2004).² In this way, many Tucsonans are familiar with blending of alternative water supplies with native groundwater.

Roughly 30 million people in seven western states currently depend on the flow of the Colorado River for municipal water supplies (Sax et al. 2006). The sociotechnical water infrastructure designed to deliver water over great distances is a complex system. How and where we consume water is a result of intentional interventions—immense dams, storage reservoirs, hundreds of miles of canals, and pumping stations direct the river’s flow. As the most vital water resource in the Southwest, the Colorado River is an intensely managed socio-technical natural system. Legal arrangements—compacts, federal laws, court decisions, contracts, and regulatory guidelines—currently govern how the Colorado River system is managed.³ Management of the system involves directing over 60 million acre feet⁴ of storage in the Lake Mead and Lake Powell reservoirs according to the terms of The Colorado River Compact of 1922, which outlines water sharing agreements among the seven states in the Colorado River basin. Projected demands associated with population growth, when coupled with the likelihood of extensive droughts, portend increased instability and vulnerability in the region. Unfortunately, existing legal and institutional arrangements position Arizona users in a distinctively vulnerable position in times of shortage (Akhter, Ormerod, and Scott 2010). Tucson is uniquely positioned at the margin of the system physically (at the tail end of the Colorado River system), legally (given junior rights status in times of declared shortage), and politically (compared to Phoenix, Las Vegas, or California). Nonetheless, Colorado River supplies are expected to make up a larger share of Tucson Water’s water supplies over time (Tucson Water 2004).

Tucson Water has used reclaimed water to offset demand for potable-quality water for close to thirty years. The reclaimed system currently meets approximately 10 percent of overall water demand by serving most large-volume outdoor irrigators, who, in large part, have already shifted to using reclaimed water (Tucson Water 2004).⁵ Water planners consider finding ways to expand future reclaimed water utilization essential to maintaining adequate long-term renewable water supplies (Browning-Aiken, Ormerod, and Scott 2011; Megdal 2006; Tucson Water 2004). Expanding the reclaimed system to serve more non-potable uses such as residential outdoor use (Campbell and Scott 2011), toilet flushing, and residential irrigation systems is one option. Although there is high public acceptance for these types of uses, expanding non-potable use is an alternative that requires a parallel pipe system, which includes considerable capital investment and energy costs. From an engineering perspective, IPR utilizes existing infrastructure, therefore significantly reducing the capital and energy costs of expanding reuse. Of the range of reuse options outlined in the Tucson Water Plan, IPR is considered to offer maximum water use efficiency (Tucson Water 2004). The consideration of IPR prompted a ballot initiative in November 2007 to ban the possibility of potable water reuse which failed to pass.⁶

Research Methods

We employed a mixed-methods approach to assess public responses towards IPR in Tucson, Arizona. Survey data were collected from residents through a self-administered questionnaire mailed to a systematic random sample of households in the greater Tucson area (September 2008). Of the 2,400 households who received a copy of the survey, 253 valid responses were received (n = 253), yielding an overall response rate of 10.5 percent. The invitation to participate in the study included the following information, “Water reclamation is commonly defined as water used for beneficial purposes after advanced wastewater treatment. Reclaimed water comes from the collection and treatment of municipal wastewater, or sewage.” The questionnaire reiterated the definition above and further stated: “The type and level of wastewater treatment determines the water quality. For the purposes of this study, please assume that all reclaimed water has been sufficiently treated to meet the appropriate health and water quality standards for each of the proposed uses.” Limitations of this study include the nonstatistically significant sample size, potential self-selection bias, and the English-only questionnaire. When compared to recent Census statistics, survey respondents are older, wealthier, less racially diverse (i.e. mostly white non-Hispanic), and more likely to be retired, college educated, a homeowner, and live in households without children (US Census 2010). Survey respondents reported overwhelming concern about future water supplies in southern Arizona (96 percent, n = 243) and a high level of trust in information provided by academic researchers (74 percent, n = 186), which may represent self-selection bias.⁷ Our study design and survey bias limits our ability to make inferences about the population at large (Tucson community); however, it satisfies the conditions necessary to make causal inferences about the group under investigation (residents who are concerned about future water supplies).

Using a 5-point Likert-type scale, the survey covered a range of reclaimed water options including indoor and outdoor uses and variables directed to elicit opinions about the effectiveness of regulations, trust in local water governance, and attitudes toward regional growth. The survey did not directly address disgust or system design. Qualitative data included open-ended responses to the survey question, “In your own words, do you have any concerns regarding water reclamation?” and responses to the prompt to provide “any comments you would like to share regarding water reclamation” (n = 151). Open-ended responses were coded thematically.

A chi-square test of independence was performed to better understand how public opinion of potable water reuse is mediated by trust in the accuracy of information provided by potential information sources. For these analyses, the question: “Would you be willing to drink reclaimed water if it matched or exceeded your current tap water quality” was selected as the dependent variable. Based on “yes,” “no,” or “unsure” responses, Pearson’s chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the relation between respondent’s willingness to drink reclaimed water and trust in potential “information sources to provide accurate information about reclaimed water.” Pearson’s chi-square statistic tests whether two variables are independent of each other by comparing observed frequencies against expected frequencies. Significant values depart from proportionality (at p < 0.05) and accept the hypothesis that the variables are related in some way, that is, their interaction influences the outcome (Warner 2008). To examine the influence of trust, 5-point Likert-type scale responses indicating the level of trust in potential information sources (distrust completely, mostly distrust, neutral, mostly trust, trust completely) were lumped into either “distrust” or “trust.”

Findings

As stated previously, overall the survey results reveal strongly held perceptions of water scarcity and near-unanimous concern regarding future water supplies in southern Arizona. Given that “we live in a desert,” many respondents believe water reclamation (not necessarily for potable use) is absolutely essential. The majority of respondents believe in the potential for reclaimed water (not specific to potable use) to help conserve limited groundwater supplies (92 percent, n = 228), increase water security and protect against water shortages (80 percent, n = 200), and reduce dependence on imported Colorado River supplies (65 percent, n = 162). Tucson was frequently presented as “a city that cares about and supports water conservation” and our results demonstrate that reclaimed water is generally considered an asset to the community.

Qualitative results also demonstrate enthusiastic support for low-tech decentralized alternatives to reclaimed water systems, such as gray water recycling and storm water harvesting. A common example of storm water harvesting is capturing rainwater runoff from rooftops in barrels or cisterns and purposely diverting it to landscaping; however, because storm water harvesting is not technically reuse we did not define or address it in the survey. As defined in our survey, “Gray water use is the practice of water reuse at the household level. Unlike reclaimed water, gray water does not undergo wastewater treatment. In gray water systems the wastewater collected from bathroom sinks, tubs, or washing machines is used on-site for lawns, landscaping, or other purposes.”

Our findings regarding acceptable uses for reclaimed water are similar to those found in previous studies in that acceptability declines as the uses come into closer personal contact (Browning-Aiken, Ormerod, and Scott 2011; Dolnicar and Saunders 2006; Marks, Martin, and Zadoroznyj 2008). For example, we found strong support for using reclaimed water supplies for flushing toilets and to meet the irrigation needs of golf courses, household lawns, public parks, and school yards. Comparatively, there is considerably less support for indoor uses for reclaimed water such as laundry, cleaning, bathing, cooking, or drinking (data not shown). Replenishing groundwater supplies (via groundwater recharge), the probable indirect buffer for IPR projects in Tucson, is the least acceptable outdoor use for reclaimed water with only 48 percent (n = 155) support. Similarly, drinking (the potable part of IPR) is the least acceptable indoor use for reclaimed water, with only 8 percent (n = 19) support. Nonetheless, when specifically asked, “Would you be willing to drink reclaimed water if it matched or exceeded current tap water quality?” respondents are near-evenly divided: 32 percent (n = 80) reported no, 33 percent (n = 81) unsure, and 35 percent (n = 88) reported yes.

As noted above, trust has been identified as a central factor in determining public acceptance of risks and water reuse. Water issues are defined in confounding technical terms that deepen dependency on expertise, therefore it is important to consider who participates in creating and filtering information when considering risk as a water policy issue. The results presented in this paragraph refer to Figure 1, which indicates the level of trust in various information sources to provide accurate information about reclaimed water. The most trusted sources were academic researchers and the water utility, while the most distrusted sources reported were local officials and the media. Even though Tucson Water is a municipally owned and operated utility, there is a sizable gap in the reported trustworthiness of elected local officials (19 percent, n = 40) when compared to the water utility (55 percent, n = 98). This gap remains despite the fact that Tucson Water suffered a crisis of credibility when the initial delivery of the CAP supplies wreaked havoc on the city pipes. Our results demonstrate Tucsonans are more likely to trust, rather than distrust, the information about reclaimed water provided by water utilities, wastewater facilities as well as federal and state regulators. However, respondents were twice as likely to distrust, rather than trust, elected local officials. In addition, less than one-third of the respondents agree with the statement “Local government is responsive to citizen concerns regarding water management” (32 percent, n = 99). Similarly, less than one-third agree with the statement “I trust local government to make decisions about appropriate use of reclaimed water” (30 percent, n = 106). Qualitative responses corroborate these findings. A number of respondents extend the distrust from “local agencies and officials” and “Tucson Water leaders” to “CAP people” and “regulators.”

Figure 1.

Trust indicated in potential information sources to provide accurate information about reclaimed water.

To better understand the influence of trust, a chi-square test of independence was performed to specifically examine the relation between respondents’ willingness to drink reclaimed water and their trust in particular sources to provide accurate information about reclaimed water. Overall, the results suggest that trust in the veracity of information provided by institutions responsible for water development influences whether or not a person was willing to drink reclaimed water (if treated to a water quality that matched or exceeded current tap water quality). The percentage of participants who are willing drinkers are significantly (p < 0.05) more trustful in the information provided by government entities, including wastewater treatment facilities, χ²(4, n = 247) = 27.13, p = 0.000;⁸ water utilities, χ²(4, n = 245) = 36.60, p = 0.000; federal regulators, χ²(4, n = 245) = 28.43, p = 0.000; state regulators, χ²(4, n = 243) = 31.08, p = 0.000; and elected local officials, χ²(4, n = 243) = 9.81, p = 0.044. In addition, the percentage of participants that were willing drinkers significantly differed by their trust in academic researchers, χ²(4, n = 246) = 31.56, p = 0.000, and independent consultants, χ²(4, n = 243) = 11.26, p = 0.024—experts and professionals who regularly participate in local water management, policy, and planning. The percentage of participants that were willing drinkers did not significantly differ by their level of trust in environmental organizations, χ²(4, n = 246) = 1.38, p = 0.848; local citizen groups, χ²(4, n = 245) = 0.76, p = 0.944; or the local media, χ²(4, n = 247) = 8.06, p = 0.090—groups that regularly comment on water management, policy, and planning but do not participate directly in system design. Neither did the percentage of participants that were willing drinkers significantly differ by their trust in the information provided by the national media, χ²(4, n = 247) = 5.95, p = 0.203; or their peers (neighbors, friends, and family) χ²(4, n = 243) = 4.29, p = 0.368. These findings suggest that public perceptions are sensitive to expert influence; however, our findings also suggest that public perceptions are related to trust in the information provided by the institutions perceived to have power in water development decisions. Government agencies, including local elected leaders, water and wastewater utilities, regulators, academics, and consultants are the institutions historically involved in system building and water development. Not only do environmental organizations, local citizen groups, and the media have weak influence over system design, they do not participate directly in the political economy of growth (Scott et al. 2011), a subject addressed below.

Urban water security (both water quality and quantity) is principally a local responsibility and many water development decisions are primarily made at the municipal level. Qualitative responses indicate that many respondents worry about the water quality associated with reclaimed water supplies and, not surprisingly, the safety of the reclaimed water was the most commonly reported concern. Respondents understand that the choices made today will shape the future in both intended and unintended ways and for many, the unknown and unintended potential long-term effects of reclaimed water consumption warrant a cautionary approach. Although a number of respondents expressed concerns about the capacity of new technologies to produce high-quality reclaimed water, more often respondents point to a lack of faith in water managers’ ability to ensure quality.

As qualitative responses suggest, perceptions of past failures contribute to lack of trust and skepticism of public officials. Numerous respondents indicate frustration with the political process and the lack of influence of the general public in shaping water policy, given the current political climate. For example:

I don’t trust that regulatory agencies (city, county, state, federal) are more concerned about public/environmental welfare than they are about the “welfare” of developers. (R56)

They cater to the business and special interest groups at the expense of the rest of us. (R26)

I’m concerned people with special interest will screw things their way and the people won’t get accurate information so “they” can make an informed and unemotional decision. (R285)

Respondents use “they” to denote those with influence and who participate in decision making regarding system capacity, operation, and design. As these quotes illustrate, “they” are perceived to lack integrity and fail to take into consideration the desires of the general public. In these instances, respondents make clear distinctions between those who have the power to influence water development decisions and the average citizen. In addition, these responses emphasize the social bases of individual opinions.

In our survey, respondents have near unanimous perceptions of regional water scarcity; yet they hold divergent views on the cause of this deficit. Nonetheless, when assigning blame, frequently identified culprits include local politicians, who are cast as irresponsible, untrustworthy, or “in the pocket” of developers; real estate developers, who are culpable for promoting population growth in pursuit of personal profit, which some argue is the root cause of future water scarcity; and newcomers to the region, especially those from eastern humid climates who are accused of wanton, negligent, or otherwise inappropriate water use.

As a technological solution to water scarcity, reclaimed water projects are usually designed to stretch finite urban water supplies. A number of respondents question the institutional rationality of another technological fix for water scarcity in Tucson. As one respondent asks, “Are we robbing Peter to pay Paul; where is the water coming from, CAP?” (R 155). This comment highlights the highly conditional nature of Tucson’s water supplies, given larger water supply issues facing the Colorado River region. A number of respondents further question the logic of allowing for continued real estate development and subsequent population growth, given the dire projections regarding future water availability. Moreover, some respondents believe reclaimed water will expand the available water supply in the short term, but that this will have the effect of allowing for continued population growth, which will serve to amplify water demand and increase vulnerability to water shortage over the long term. These findings suggest that public perceptions of reclaimed water are shaped by social processes involved in water development, including people’s past experiences, their trust in expert system builders, and their sense of their power to participate in water development decisions a meaningful way.

Discussion

In this article, we specifically address how personal decisions to support or reject potable water reuse are mediated by trust in the institutions responsible for municipal water development in Tucson. Cultural theory proposes that ethical and moral judgments about purity, danger, and pollution are particularly important notions that inform decisions about risk. Social and cultural context identifies “matter out of place” as particularly offensive and risky (Douglas [1966] 1980). Cultural theory suggests that experts debating water reuse make judgments based on the rationality of science and risk analysis that is at root reductionist. Their cultural typology trusts toxicological testing, microbiological analysis, and epidemiological studies. This type of individuated risk orientation ignores the structural production of risk, or understood another way, relies on experts’ inherent trust in the social and political construction of these and related scientific methods to identify, assess, and ultimately abate risk. For the larger public, previous notions of hygiene and progress inform the current debate. Here, potable reuse epitomizes “matter out of place” since it violates cultural norms, confronts ideas about urban order, and runs counter to the long-standing practices that insist on keeping wastewater separate from drinking water supplies due to health concerns. Seen in this way, potable reuse transgresses normative cultural boundaries to produce a “yuck factor” response akin to disgust (Marks, Martin, and Zadoroznyj 2008). Nevertheless, this is a different conceptualization of public perception since social and spatial forms are the basis for risk perception, rather than a psychological response that is internal to the individual.

Our findings support social–cultural approaches to risk and social studies of science, both of which stress that perceptions are not simply informed by individual psychological factors but are shaped by, and embedded in, highly interdependent social, cultural, and historic contexts (Bijker 1995; Bijker 2007; Douglas 1992; Tulloch and Lupton 2003). IPR projects are a highly technological approach to water management, one that deepens dependency on expertise, reduces system flexibility, and facilitates system growth. Supporting social–cultural approaches to risk, our findings suggest that trust in experts, authorities, and scientific knowledge is paramount to understanding public attitudes regarding IPR. Specifically, our findings suggest that public opinion of IPR is mediated by levels of trust in experts with influence on system design (water development, management, and operation) including government officials with authority (decision makers) as well as those who supply interpretations (experts and specialists).

As a technological, path-dependent response to water scarcity, IPR projects are representative of the complex, large-scale, technical, supply-side solutions to water scarcity that rely overwhelmingly on the professionals who design, regulate, and operate the wastewater treatment and water delivery systems (McEvoy and Wider in press). Continued investments in large systems, infrastructures such as roads, water, and wastewater systems, embed certain prescriptive practice in the land with clearly defined rules of action and behavior. The larger the systems, the lesser the degree of autonomy and the more inscribed by the system itself (Murdoch 1998). We argue that these taken-for-granted complex water systems are largely spaces of prescription because they exhibit a certain level of rigid, remote control—this is especially true within the Colorado River system. Nonetheless, occasionally a reverse salient hampers system growth and demonstrates that spaces of prescription can also shade into spaces of negotiation providing an opening for renegotiation and revisable coalitions (at least at the local level).

Murdoch’s concept of spaces of prescription—systems that are rarely left open for renegotiation, or reorganization—sheds light on ways that the “sewer script” is not compatible with decentralized, autonomous conservation practices such as gray water use. Despite the water and energy savings of gray water (since there is no need to treat/retreat and deliver/redeliver), diverted gray water poses a problem for the operation of the existing sewer system because the nineteenth-century gravity-based design requires a certain velocity of wastewater to keep the solid wastes moving to the treatment plant. Furthermore, the wastewater return flow is essential to maintain reclaimed water inventory and continue operations (Megdal 2009). Individual gray water adoption, while conserving energy and reusing water resources, actually poses a threat to the “renewable” character of reclaimed water supplies by capturing and redistributing the “stable” wastewater return flow. Currently, decentralized (gray water) and centralized (reclaimed) water reuse can operate at the same time and in the same place; however, these approaches remain largely incompatible with each other (Megdal 2009; Murdoch 1998). In essence, by eliminating the ability to even tinker around the edges of the system, accepting IPR demands a greater degree of compliance with the sewer script and decreases individual autonomy. The systems approach emphasizes the role of inventors, engineers, managers, and financiers in creating and defining the systems while also acknowledging that systems are historically and geographically contingent and dynamic. The threat gray water adoption poses to reclaimed water supplies illustrates how “even in some of the most formalized systems, local negotiation is necessary to make the system work” (Murdoch 1998, 363).

Despite the fact that individual decisions can collectively influence what “works” for Tucson’s water systems, many respondents suggest that the design choices—especially decisions regarding capacity—are out of their hands. Results of our survey suggest that trust in local government is quite low where water is concerned, especially given the widespread perceptions of political influence from special interests in the business community. When considering the predominant role experts play in water policy making in the Western United States, Waller notes, “from specialized knowledge flows a cognitive power that authoritatively interprets and defines the world to the point where experts define the possible . . . and the probable . . . and thereby help to shape both the capacity of individuals to act and the context in which action occurs” (Waller 1995, 155). Qualitative responses suggest some respondents feel their participation is limited to a set of predetermined policy options, where “participation” is seen merely as means to predefined ends. A number of respondents note lack of choice “since you [decision-makers] are going to do what you want” or a sense of inevitability given the undue influence of real-estate developers; however the ways that individual creativity is constrained is less clearly articulated in the surveyed responses.

Engineers and water planners construct environments both materially and mentally, systems in which favored projects seem more viable. Hughes’ concept of system momentum helps to explain the inertia of large sociotechnical systems and the political commitment to centralized wastewater treatment, reclaimed water use, and the more recent shift toward IPR projects. IPR projects make sense in the deeply institutionalized logic of water professionals. The history of water sanitation over the long view sees IPR not as a radical change, but in line with the past incremental growth of the system, that is, it is a logical outcome of system momentum and path dependence.

This case study demonstrates how choices about risks and large-scale technologies are “thick with politics” (Bijker 2007). The prospect of IPR in Tucson is steeped in the local politics of municipal water and real estate development. As a reverse salient, public opposition to IPR proposals disrupt normally hidden processes much in the same way that IPR politics disrupt normal government activities and threaten system momentum. Our proposition partially rejects psychological explanations that do not allow for examination of certain fundamentally important social, structural, and economic activities. Further, we argue IPR proposals offer up a moment of translation and provide a unique opportunity to renegotiate the system. Rather than trying to move public opinion in line with expert thinking, we argue water planners and local government must consider the social implications of increased reclaimed water use, confront public concerns regarding continued development and growth, and expand participation to include those normally considered outside of the usual boundaries of system design and development.

Our findings suggest that the way people view IPR in Tucson is both a cause and an effect of local water policies and history. In spite of Tucson’s reputation for progressive water policies, numerous respondents suggested there has been a significant lack of imagination from the political leadership where water is concerned. From a water planning perspective, radically expanding reclaimed water use is a foregone conclusion. What eventuated from qualitative responses is an earnest willingness for greater water conservation; numerous respondents indicating that much more can be done in this regard. IPR is a technology that currently represents vested interests, and the institutions responsible for water development in Tucson are perceived as “prima donnas” who privilege politics and profits over people. We believe that finding innovative ways for the citizenry to truly participate in water policy decisions during the design and planning phases could engender confidence in the public engagement process.

Conclusion

In this article, we examine public perceptions of IPR by considering attitudes related to expert trust and political legitimacy in Tucson, Arizona. Although research regarding public perceptions of potable and non-potable reclaimed water use has favored psychological explanations for public opinion, our findings suggest that innate disgust provides an insufficient explanation of the nature of public responses. Instead, the risks identified by members of the community in Tucson reveal how cultural perceptions of risk play out in a particular setting and help illuminate the highly interdependent social factors that inform personal decisions to support or reject IPR technologies more broadly. In Tucson, population growth confronts the physical limits of the environment, a situation that is accentuated by persistent uncertainty in long-term water planning. The context of Tucson combines natural processes with system design in a way that may undermine public support for IPR. These findings highlight the importance of the social–cultural components of risk and complements recent scholarship arguing for greater consideration of social–cultural explanations for public responses to municipal reclaimed water use.

Furthermore, this study examines the supposed neutrality of technological solutions for water scarcity to reveal how large complex systems reshape social and political life. All technologies are simultaneously enabling and constraining. Our survey of residents in Tucson reveals that pipes, professionals, profit, and politics are perceived to be major players, while citizens passionate about the community and conservation feel they do not have ability to influence system design or local water policy. Finding ways to increase public involvement in a less restricted manner would contribute to the legitimacy of process and potentially offer new alternatives, options that may not have been considered otherwise. New forums are favored over extensive public meetings or public relations campaigns aimed at moving public perceptions in line with experts. Such tactics undervalue the capacity of public comprehension, serve to reify expert knowledge as unbiased, and further mask the political implications of risk.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their appreciation and thanks to Sarah Moore and Paul Robbins as committee members for Kerri Jean Ormerod’s M.A. thesis, which this research contributed to.Thanks also extend to the study participants for their thoughtful contributions and the anonymous reviewers for intellectual input leading to acceptance of this paper.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This material is based in part upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), Office of Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation subtopic Resilient and Sustainable Infrastructures under Grant No. EFRI-0835930; the STAR Fellowship Assistance Agreement No. FP91735701 awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); University of Arizona, Technology and Research Initiative Fund, Water Sustainability Program through the Water Resources Research Center; and a Margaret Trussell Scholarship. The views expressed in this publication are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies.

Notes

References

Akhter

Majed

Ormerod

Kerri Jean

Scott

Christopher A.

. 2010. “Lost in Translation: Resilience, Social Agency, and Water Planning in Tucson, Arizona.” Critical Planning 17 (Summer): 47–65.

Bickerstaff

Karen

Walker

Gordon

. 2003. “The Place(s) of Matter: Matter out of Place-Public Understandings of Air Pollution.” Progress in Human Geography 27 (1): 45–67.

Bijker

Wiebe E.

2007. “Dikes and Dams, Thick with Politics.” Isis 98 (1): 109–23.

Bijker

Wiebe E.

1995. Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Bridgeman

2004. “Public Perception towards Water Recycling in California.” Journal of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management 18 (3): 150–54.

Browning-Aiken

Ormerod

K. J.

Scott

C. A.

. 2011. “Testing the Climate for Non-potable Water Reuse: Opportunities and Challenges in Water-Scarce Urban Growth Corridors.” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 13 (3): 253–75.

Bruvold

W. H.

Olson

B. H.

Rigby

. 1981. “Public Policy for the use of Reclaimed Water.” Environmental Management 5 (2): 95–107.

Campbell

Anne

Scott

Christopher A.

. 2011. “Water Reuse: Policy Implications of a Decade of Residential Reclaimed Water use in Tucson, Arizona.” Water International 36 (7): 908–23.

Dingfelder

Sadie F.

2004. “From Toilet to Tap: Psychologists lend their Expertise to Overcoming the Public’s Aversion to Reclaimed Water.” APA Monitor 35 (8): 26.

10.

Dolnicar

Saunders

. 2006. “Recycled Water for Consumer Markets—A Marketing Research Review and Agenda.” Desalination 187: 203–14.

11.

Douglas

Mary

. 1992. Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. London and New York: Routledge.

12.

Douglas

Mary

. (1966) 1980. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London, England and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

13.

Freudenburg

William R.

Pastor

Susan K.

. 1992. “Public Responses to Technological Risks: Towards a Sociological Perspective.” The Sociological Review Quarterly 33 (3): 389–412.

14.

Friedler

Lahav

. 2006. “Centralised Urban Wastewater Reuse: What is the Public Attitude?” Water Science and Technology 54 (6-7): 423–30.

15.

Furlong

Kathryn

. 2010. “Small technologies, big change: Rethinking infrastructure through STS and geography.” Progress in Human Geography 35 (4): 1–23.

16.

Hartley

Troy W

. 2006. “Public Perception and Participation in Water Reuse.” Desalination 187 (1-3) (01): 115–26.

17.

Hommels

Anique

. 2005. “Studying Obduracy in the City: Toward a Productive Fusion Between Technology Studies and Urban Studies.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 30 (3): 323–51.

18.

Hughes

Thomas Parke

. 1983. Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880-1930. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

19.

Hughes

Thomas Parke

. 1987. “The Evolution of Large Technological Systems.” In The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, edited by Bijker

Wiebe E.

Hughes

Thomas Parke

Pinch

T. J.

, 51–82. Cambridge: MIT Press.

20.

Jansen

H. P.

Stenstrom

M. K

deKoning

. 2007. “Development of Indirect Potable Reuse in Impacted Areas of the United States.” Water Science & Technology 55 (1): 357–66.

21.

Khan

S. J.

Gerrard

L. E.

. 2006. “Stakeholder Communications for Successful Water Reuse Operations.” Desalination 187 (1-3): 191–202.

22.

Marks

June

. 2006. “Taking the Public Seriously: The Case of Potable and Non-potable Reuse.” Desalination 187 (1-3): 134–147.

23.

Marks

June

Martin

Bill

Zadoroznyj

Maria

. 2008. “How Australians Order Acceptance of Recycled Water.” Journal of Sociology 44 (1): 83–99.

24.

McEvoy

Jamie

Wider

Margaret

. in press. “Discourse and Desalination: Potential Impacts of Proposed Climate change Adaptation Intervention in the Arizona-Sonora Border Region.” Global Environmental Change. doi: 10.1016/j.gloevcha2011.001.

25.

Megdal

Sharon

. 2006. Water Resource Availability for the Tucson Metropolitan Area. Tucson: University of Arizona, Water Resources Research Center.

26.

Megdal

Sharon

. 2009. “Payoffs from Water-saving Practices may Have Down-the-Line Costs: Reduced Wastewater Flows due to Graywater Use is a Concern.” Arizona Water Resource 1 (1): 7.

27.

Murdoch

Jonathan

. 1998. “The Spaces of Actor-Network Theory.” Geoforum 29 (4): 357–74.

28.

National Research Council. 2012. Water Reuse: Potential for Expanding the Nation’s Water Supply through Reuse of Municipal Wastewater, ed. (U.S.) Committee on the Assessment of Water Reuse as an Approach to Meeting Future Water Supply Needs. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

29.

Parkinson

Jonathan

. 2008. “Waste Not: The Facts about Indirect Potable Reuse.” Humanist 68 (4): 4–6.

30.

Pinch

Trevor J.

2001. “Why You Go to a Music Store to Buy a Synthesizer: Path Dependence and the Social Construction of Technology.” In Path dependence and creation, edited by Garud

Raghu

Karnøe

Peter

, 381–99. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

31.

Poole

2008. “Turning Waste Water into Drinking Water: Toilet to Tap Could Bridge Supply-Demand Gap.” Tucson Citizen April 28, 2008.

32.

Rodriguez

Van Buynder

Lugg

Blair

Devine

Cook

Weinstein

. 2009. “Indirect Potable Reuse: A Sustainable Water Supply Alternative.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 6 (3): 1174–209.

33.

Royte

Elizabeth

. 2008. “A Tall, Cool Drink of . . . Sewage?” New York Times Magazine, 10 August 2008.

34.

Russell

Stewart

Lux

Stewart

. 2009. “Getting Over Yuck: Moving from Psychological to Cultural and Sociotechnical Analyses of Responses to Water Recycling.” Water Policy 11 (1) (01): 21–35.

35.

Sala

Serra

. 2004. “Towards Sustainability in Water Recycling.” Water Science and Technology: A Journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research 50 (2): 1–8.

36.

Sax

Joseph L.

Thompson

B. H.

Jr Leshly

J. D.

Abrams

R. H.

2006. Legal Control of Water Resources: Cases and Materials. American Casebook Series. 4th ed. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West.

37.

Scott

Christopher A.

Browning-Aiken

Anne

Ormerod

Kerri Jean

Varady

Robert G.

Mogollon

Carlos David

Tessmer

Carrie

. 2011. “Guidance on Links between Water Reclamation and Reuse and Regional Growth.” WateReuse Research Foundation Report 06-016-1, p. 67. Arlington, VA: WateReuse Research Foundation.

38.

Scott

Christopher A.

Raschid-Sally

. 2012. “The Global Commodification of Wastewater. In special issue “Has Water Privatization Peaked? The Future of Public Water Governance.”” Water International 37 (2): 147–155.

39.

Schmidt

C. W.

2008. “The Yuck Factor: When Disgust Meets Discovery.” Environmental Health Perspectives 116 (12): A524–7.

40.

Short

James F.

1984. “The Social Fabric of Risk: Toward the Social Transformation of Risk Analysis.” American Sociological Review 49 (6): 711–25.

41.

Sims

John H.

Baumann

Duane D.

. 1976. “Professional Bias and Water Reuse.” Economic Geography 52 (1) (Jan.): 1–10.

42.

Spiegel

Alix

. 2011, Aug 16. “Why Cleaned Wastewater Stays Dirty in Our Minds.” Morning Edition, National Public Radio.

43.

Slovic

Paul

. 1987. “Perception of Risk.” Science 236 (4799): 280–85.

44.

Stenekes

Nyree

Colebatch

Hal K.

Waite

T. D.

Ashbolt

Nick J.

. 2006. “Risk and Governance in Water Recycling: Public Acceptance Revisited.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 31 (2) (03): 107–34.

45.

Water

Tucson

. 2004. “Tucson Water --Water Plan: 2000-2050.” City of Tucson Water Department, accessed October 04, 2012 http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/files/water/docs/waterplan.pdf.

46.

Tulloch

John

Lupton

Deborah

. 2003. Risk and Everyday Life. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

47.

United States Bureau of the Census. 2010. Table DP-1. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010 Tucson city, Arizona. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census, 2010. accessed August 03, 2010 http://www.doi.gov/water2025.

48.

United States Department of Interior. 2003. Water 2025: Preventing Crises and Conflict in the West. Water 2025 Status Report. Department of Interior. Bureau of Reclamation. May 2003.02. accessed December 04, 2012 http://content.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/wwu&CISOPTR=22&filename=23.pdf.

49.

Waller

Tom

. 1995. “Knowledge, Power and Environmental Policy: Expertise, the Lay Public, and Water Management in the Western United States.” The Environmental Professional. 17 (3): 153–66.

50.

Warner

Rebecca M.

2008. Applied Statistics: From Bivariate through Multivariate Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.