TASA 2003 Conference, University of New England, 46 December 2003

California Dreaming: Public Accep-

tance of Potable Water Reuse

June S. Marks
Department of Sociology
Flinders University of South Australia
Email: june.marks@flinders.edu.au

Abstract
Traditional sources of water are being supplemented by recycled water to alleviate
the growing pressure on local water resources. This paper outlines the main find-
ings from several case studies drawn from the Californian experience of proposals
to supplement drinking water supplies with highly treated sewage effluent. Califor-
nia in particular has demonstrated an obsession with this highest level of recycling
water, despite cautionary warnings by Bruvold (1972, 1985) published in water in-
dustry literature. The grounded theory and wider data collection drawn from a
cross-national PhD study on the social experience of recycled water contributes to
the discussion. Sztompkas (1999) explanatory framework for the social becoming
of trust suggests ways in which the water and sewerage industry can rebuild public
trust in recycled water for uses involving higher level human contact.

Introduction
To meet the demands of growing populations in water scarce regions, recy-
cling sewage effluent is becoming an alternative water resource in Australia
and in many locations overseas. This paper centres on five recent attempts
to use recycled water to supplement the drinking water supply in California.
Although it is not alone in its move to introduce this high-tech solution to
problems of water management with public approval, its determination to do
so sets it apart from other examples investigated. Research findings are
drawn from a PhD study into the social experience of recycled water that
uses a triangulation of methods and a grounded theory approach.
Definitions
Potable reuse refers to the practice of treating sewage effluent to drinking
water standards to supplement drinking water supplies. The indirect
method of introducing recycled water to groundwater and rivers upstream of
the withdrawal of drinking water is often undertaken incidentally via sewage
Marks California Dreaming 2
outfalls and is termed unplanned potable reuse. Non potable reuse is using
recycled water for purposes other than drinking, cooking and showering.
Residential reuse refers to recycled water distributed on a community scale
through a separate pipe for household uses such as garden irrigation and
toilet flushing.
The context of the dreaming
The social science literature on recycled water (reclaimed water; water reuse)
is negligible and centres on socio-psychological studies conducted in the
USA (for example Bruvold 1971). Several propositions are reported by Bru-
vold (1972-1988) in water industry literature to guide the introduction of po-
table reuse, for example:
1. Where reuse options are not specifically planned, opposition to uses of re-
cycled water decreases as the degree of likely human contact decreases
(1988: 46, 48).
2. Opposition to potable reuse is more likely to come from people of a lower
socio-economic level, older people, women, long-term residents and those
who are unaware of the practice of recycling water (1985: 77).

Bruvold (1985: 77) recommends that lower level socio-economic groups be
targeted for educational campaigns; focusing just on higher socio-economic
groups, the opinion leaders, would be like preaching to the converted.
In his earliest work, Bruvold (1972: 17) confirms that when Californian re-
spondents are given details of four alternative new sources of water, im-
ported and desalinated water are preferred over reclaimed and demineralised
water. Psychological repugnance of recycled water is one of the main rea-
sons given for the rejection of one or more of twenty-five uses of recycled wa-
ter (1972: 21, 23). Because opposition to potable reuse is consistently over
50%, he advises that its introduction would meet with public opposition and
would likely terminate such innovative use (1972: 29). Therefore, he rec-
ommends the introduction of new low contact uses, including residential re-
use, to overcome repugnance (1972: 33). Although he does not recognise
trust as a pivotal factor, Bruvold repeatedly recommends that higher contact
non potable reuse be introduced prior to potable reuse (1981: 490; 1985: 76;
1988: 48).
Douglas (1966: 36) argues that the rejection of practices that are not cultur-
ally in tune with accepted norms suggests matter out of place rather than
simple revulsion. Such cultural discords are labelled so that they may be
easily recognised should they reappear. Salience of the issue arises as an
important factor in public acceptance of technology posing potential health
risks, as found in Szaszs (1994) sociological analysis of the siting of con-
taminated waste. Even if the risk potential is essentially zero, it may still be
rejected for other social reasons (Otway & von Winterfeldt 1982: 254). Stra-
tegic approaches to public consultation are contrasted by Habermas (1990)
with his concept of communicative action which allows fair and meaningful
public involvement.
TASA 2003 Conference Proceedings
Marks California Dreaming 3
Giddens (1991: 127; 1990: 113) basic trust in abstract, expert systems
such as municipal water supply explains the taken-for-granted attitude to-
wards safe drinking water that satisfies so many basic daily necessities.
When risk is introduced, active trust (Giddens 1994a: 84-89; 1994b: 15,
155) is relevant, where trust in the expert system has to be actively negoti-
ated, and trust can be withdrawn if technical competence wavers. Both top-
down and bottom-up influences on trust building are important (Misztal
1996, 2001; Sztompka 1999) and Sztompkas (1999) framework for the so-
cial becoming of trust provides a model for systematically exploring the
foundations of trust or distrust in the acceptance of socio-cultural change to
accommodate high risk technology.
Study design
The cases referred to here were identified through a review of the industry
literature and ethnographic research involving site visits (August and Sep-
tember 2001), conference participation, and interviews with water and re-
claimed water professional engineer-managers. In California, there are five
known recent attempts to introduce potable reuse systems and these were
all selected to strengthen analytical generalisations to the theory (Yin 1989:
44, Glaser & Strauss 1967: 49). Table 1 below details the multiple sources
of data.
Table 1 Case study selection and design
Case study Selection cri-
teria
Units of analysis and sources of data
San Diego
(1993-1999)
theoretical:
abandoned
indirect pota-
ble reuse
project: industry literature, website,
conference papers
intermediate: prior surveys, media
articles
individual: interview with manager,
correspondence with informants
San Gabriel
(1993-1994)
literal:
indirect pota-
ble
holistic: industry literature, media
articles
Dublin San Ramon
(1990-1998, ongo-
ing)
literal:
indirect pota-
ble
holistic: industry literature, media
articles,
personal correspondence with staff
East Valley LA
(1990-2000)
literal:
indirect pota-
ble
holistic: industry literature, survey,
media articles
Orange County, CA
(1990s and pro-
posed to go on line
in 2005, deferred
to 2006)
theoretical:
proposed
indirect pota-
ble
holistic: reports, media articles,
documents, website, PR literature
intermediate: prior surveys
individual: interview with staff mem-
bers, personal communications

TASA 2003 Conference Proceedings
Marks California Dreaming 4
Note: commencing dates are approximately when the proposal gained official
approval; prior planning and research often began ten or more years earlier.
Summary findings are also included where applicable from other sources of
data analysed in the PhD study involving six case studies of established po-
table reuse, three where potable reuse was attempted outside California, an
audit of twenty-one previous surveys and four embedded case studies of
residential reuse in Australia and Florida. The grounded theory approach
(Glaser & Strauss 1967, Glaser 2002), which allows the data to speak for it-
self, identified the fit of Sztompkas (1990, 1996, 1999) theoretical framework
for analysing trust as an ongoing process. The model can be depicted as
shown in Figure 1 below:

Historical
tradition
Characteristics
of agency
Revised
culture of
trust
Structural
context
natural environment
Structural opportunities
normative coherence
stability of social order
transparency of social organization
familiarity of social environment at Gid-
dens (1990) access points
accountability of persons and institutions

Figure 1 Trust as an ongoing process based on the social becoming of trust model
(Sztompka 1990, 1996, 1999)
Findings
Public opposition to potable reuse
Opposition to drinking water sourced from potable reuse systems is con-
firmed in all proposed potable reuse sites in California and elsewhere since
the late 1980s. The bid to introduce potable reuse finally ended in San
Diego in 1999 in the wake of political reactions from councillors, state legis-
lators and even members of the water authority. Toilet to tap slogans ap-
peared in the media intermittently from 1993 and emotions peaked when Af-
rican American residents took to the streets in 1998 because they believed
the new water was unfairly targeted for their residential area (La Rue 1998).
Public opposition to the San Gabriel proposal employed toilet to tap label-
ling and the local brewerys concerns for the quality of the water cemented
its final rejection (Hartling 2001: 45). Two of three cities in the Dublin San
Ramon project were fervently against the proposal, taking an anti-growth
stance; successfully taking legal action to stall its implementation (Moy
2002). East Valley residents also employed toilet to tap publicity when they
realised their area would be the site for the experimental stage of the system
(CNN 2000).
In two surveys conducted in Orange County, the question that explores
whether respondents will drink the water attracts 37% agreement in 1997,
and slightly rises to 39% in 2000. This response is comparable to survey re-
TASA 2003 Conference Proceedings
Marks California Dreaming 5
sults for Los Angeles, San Diego, and others conducted in California,
whereby acceptance for drinking falls around 20% below support levels for
the general policy. The average across seven Californian survey results that
explore intentions to drink is 40.6%, slightly above the 38.6% mean in Bru-
volds (1985, 1988) review of ten studies.
Contrary to Bruvolds proposition, closeness of contact still defines accep-
tance of potable reuse where it has salience, particularly as health concerns
presuppose human contact. Where respondents, who reside in the area to
be affected, are asked to explain their opposition to potable reuse, the emer-
gent theme is distrust: distrust in the concept due to health risks associated
with the sewage source and distrust in the technology to control these risks.
In Orange County, this concern has the potential to rise as time passes; for
example, between 1997 and 2000, there is a 54% increase in concern for the
sewage source.
Public exposure to recycled water
Direct contact with non potable reuse is not evident in California. At the
time of research, residential reuse was being tentatively introduced at one
new housing development for household garden irrigation. This contrasts to
the experience in Florida where this level of residential reuse is widely estab-
lished. In each of the five Californian sites, non potable reuse is either not
practised or not fully exploited and this is also the case in the three sites
that proposed potable reuse outside California. Only now, after the aban-
donment or postponement of the projects, is consideration being given to low
level contact non potable reuse.
Controlled public awareness
Interviews with representatives in the industry reveal the irony of public
awareness of potable reuse. From the industrys point of view, unplanned
potable reuse is an established, historical fact and an oft-quoted example is
that the Thames River has been consumed and expelled several times before
it reaches its London constituents. However, public awareness of this gen-
eral practice is low, as a water engineer observes:
The general population think the water comes from mountain streams
and is piped directly to us. They dont understand that sewage from
other cities is treated and put back into the river. (3: 18)
Yet, the industry is reluctant to publicly reveal this practice:
We [water providers] are willing to tell them, but you cant get that
message across. Sewer people are more likely to do it than water peo-
ple they [water providers] would get complaints about water quality.
(3: 19)
Existing, planned indirect potable reuse systems were introduced at a time
of minimal requirement for public consultation. However, a recycled water
manager observes that these keep a low public profile (2: 17). This is con-
firmed in information published on relevant websites and in survey ques-
tions put to respondents in Los Angeles and Orange County. Mention is not
TASA 2003 Conference Proceedings
Marks California Dreaming 6
made of existing potable reuse located in each of these counties. Paradoxi-
cally, a manager of an indirect potable reuse site is frustrated with public ig-
norance of this technology:
They dont think of what goes on behind the scenes. They think a
sewage fairy takes water away. They have no idea what goes on
here. A mysterious black box to them. They dont even notice as
they drive past. (8:43)
Alternatives
Proponents of indirect potable reuse regard it as the gold standard in water
recycling in California (for example, Sheikh 2003). Unlike the established
systems, the latest proposals for indirect potable reuse involve higher, costly
treatment. Nevertheless, these costs are offset by savings made from delay-
ing the replacement of sewage disposal infrastructure, decreasing the reli-
ance on imported water, and avoiding the cost of installing dual pipe infra-
structure for non potable reuse. In addition, such innovative projects attract
government grants and can be financed by low interest loans and public
bonds. It is observed that in surveys conducted where potable reuse is pro-
posed, in San Diego, Orange County and Los Angeles, potable reuse is of-
fered as the only alternative to sewage discharge. Yet, as Bruvold found, re-
spondents may prefer alternatives to recycled water and non potable reuse is
more acceptable than potable reuse; confirmed in the audit of those surveys
that canvassed both forms of water reuse.
Public outreach
Insufficient public consultation has been undertaken in each of the five
cases. San Diego conducted an intensive educational campaign over six-
months, but this was after the decision had been made to implement potable
reuse. All five cases are characterised by the historical decide-advise-defend
(DAD) engineering approach to project implementation (Hartling 2001: 48).
In the court case mounted against the Dublin San Ramon project, it was
found that procedural justice was at issue and that a public hearing should
be held to allow public participation (Moy 2002). In the East Valley case, the
proponents were accused of failing to adequately inform residents that [the]
final product would enter drinking supplies (Kondo 2000: 1). A water engi-
neer reflects on the general demise of Californias schemes:
They did not give people the long history. Engineers decided them-
selves it was cheaper than other ways and announced: This is what
we are going to do. (17: 16)
The Orange County public relations team confirms that a top-down process
is being implemented, similar to the approach in San Diego. Community
leaders are identified and presentations are made to various business and
non profit organisations with the idea that positive information will trickle
down to the lower echelons of society. Effectiveness of this process is ques-
tionable according to Orange County survey results. In 1997, 75% of re-
spondents had not heard of the Groundwater Replenishment System being
built for their region. While this improved to 58% in 2000, of those who were
TASA 2003 Conference Proceedings
Marks California Dreaming 7
aware in 1997, 51% supported the concept, and this had fallen to 46% by
2000.
Trust in proponents of potable reuse
As earlier noted, Bruvolds work does not explore the role of trust. The audit
of recent surveys where respondents are asked to indicate their level of trust
in water and sewerage providers confirms that these two agencies are the
least trusted. In the seven surveys involved (including Los Angeles and San
Diego surveys), medical/health agencies, scientists, environmental protec-
tion authorities and environmental groups are more highly trusted. Orange
County survey questions did not include any of these more trusted agencies
and, in the 2000 results, only 13% of respondents indicate that they trust
the agency to go ahead with the project without informing constituents.
Discussion
Separation of the purity of drinking water from sewage represents two tradi-
tional engineered systems that have earned basic trust in modernity. To
combine the two systems resonates with Douglass (1966) explanation of the
cultural discord caused by matter out of place. This radical change is set
against the low level of public awareness of unplanned potable reuse and ex-
isting planned systems, arguably caused by the reluctance of the industry to
make this information public. It must also be placed in context with the in-
experience of the public in recycling water sourced from sewage effluent. Fi-
nally, the low level of public trust in water and sewerage agencies hampers
acceptance of higher risk technology and calls for a concerted effort to build
community trust in the policy making process and recycled water in general.
Structural opportunities of trust-building appear to be lost in the Californian
dreaming. Normal coherence cannot be established when existing systems
are shielded from the public gaze. Stability of the social order during the
move towards combining the systems has not been achieved in the way sug-
gested in Bruvolds recommendations. Low contact non potable reuse is un-
derdeveloped, if it is introduced at all, and therefore the potential to build
familiarity with recycled water is forfeited. Transparency is significantly
hampered throughout the historical experience and is further compromised
when decisions to implement potable reuse are made before the public are
consulted, and no alternatives to potable reuse are offered in survey re-
search. Taken together, it is understandable that the accountability of the
water and sewerage agencies does not hold up under the pressure to imple-
ment potable reuse.
In four of the five cases in California, opposition was organised from the
grass roots of discontent, and later included representatives in public office.
The controversy is inherently political. Bruvold (1972) reflected this fact
when he recommended that due to majority opposition, potable reuse should
not be attempted.
TASA 2003 Conference Proceedings
Marks California Dreaming 8
Conclusion
These studies illustrate that the lack of supporting structure for potable re-
use, brought about by the strategic approach of the industry, induces a re-
gressive agency with respect to the revised culture of trust in recycled water.
If trust in this new water resource is to be established, it should be imple-
mented in line with public acceptance. California dreaming by proponents of
potable reuse fails to appreciate the negative effect of limiting the public
knowledge of existing sources of water, ignores Bruvolds substantive find-
ings, and fails to recognise potable reuse as a unique project that requires
working outside the traditional limitations of engineering project manage-
ment. A reflexive reassessment of this approach may effect a more progres-
sive agency.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by United Water International Pty Ltd.
References
Bruvold, W.H. (1971) Raters attitudes and the method of equal-appearing
intervals, Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psy-
chological Association, Vol.6(1), pp.373-374.
Bruvold, W.H. (1972) Public Attitudes Towards Reuse of Reclaimed Water,
Contribution No. 137, School of Public Health, University of California,
Berkeley, pp. 1-54
Bruvold, W.H. (1981) Community Evaluation of Adopted Uses of Reclaimed
Water, Water Resources Research, 17(3): 487-490.
Bruvold, W.H. (1985) Obtaining Public Support for Reuse Water, American
Water Works Association Journal, 77(7): 72-77.
Bruvold, W.H. (1988) Public Opinion on Water Reuse Options, Journal of
Water Pollution Control Federation, 60(1): 45-49.
Bruvold,-William-H. (1971) Affective Response Toward Uses of Reclaimed
Water in Journal of Applied Psychology, February, 55(1): 28-33.
CNN (2000) Los Angeles Officials Want to Turn Wastewater into Drinking
Water, CNN.com 17 April. (Online, accessed 4 June 2000) URL: http
//www.cnn.com/2000/ NATURE/04/17/toilet.to.tap.02/index.html
Douglas, M. (1966) Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution
and Taboo, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity, Polity, Cambridge.
TASA 2003 Conference Proceedings
Marks California Dreaming 9
Giddens, A. (1994a) Living in a Post-Traditional Society, Reflexive moderni-
sation, in U. Beck, A. Giddens & S. Lash (eds.), Reflexive Moderniza-
tion: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order, Polity
Press, Cambridge, pp. 56-109.
Giddens, A. (1994b) Beyond Left and Right, Polity, Cambridge.
Glaser B.G. (2002) Grounded Theory and Gender Relevance, Health Care
For Women International, Paper, Taylor and Francis Health Sciences,
pp.1-9.
Glaser, B.G. and A.L. Strauss (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago, Aldine.
Habermas, J. (1990) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, Trans-
lation of Moralbewusstsein und kommunikatives Handeln, translated
by C. Lenhardt and S. Weber Nicholsen, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Hartling, E.C. (2001) Laymanization: An Engineers Guide to Public Rela-
tions, Water Environment & Technology, Vol.13(4), April, pp.45-48.
La Rue, S. (1998) Vargas opposes toilet-to-tap plan, OKs using grey water
for irrigation: Councilman says public doesnt want to drink purified
sewage, 2 October. (Online accessed 11 April 2001) URL:
http://www.uniontrib.com/news/uniontrib/fri/ index.html
Misztal, B.A. (1996) Trust in Modern Societies, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Misztal, B.A. (2001) Trust and cooperation: The democratic Public Sphere,
Journal of Sociology, 37(4): 371-386
Moy, M. (2002) Judge Orders State to Review Water Plan: Pleasanton, Zone
7 File Objection to Earlier Action and want Public Comment Before
System is Initiated, Contra Costa Times, 2 May (Online accessed 9
May 2002) URL: http//www.bayarea. com/mld/cctimes/318018
Otway, H.J. and D. von Winterfeldt (1982) Beyond acceptable risk: on the
social acceptability of technologies, Policy Sciences, 14: 247-256.
Sheikh, B. (2003) Indirect potable reuse through groundwater recharge and
surface water augmentation - the gold standard in water recycling in
California, Keynote speech, Water Recycling Australia, 1 September,
Brisbane.
Szasz, A. (1994) EcoPopulism: toxic waste and the movement for environ-
mental justice, Vol.1, Social movements, protest, and contention, Bert
Klandermans (ed.), University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Sztompka, P. (1990) Agency and progress: the idea of progress and chang-
ing theories of change in J.C. Alexander and P.Sztompka (eds), Re-
TASA 2003 Conference Proceedings
Marks California Dreaming 10
thinking Progress: movements, forces, and ideas at the end of the twen-
tieth century, Unwin Hayman, Boston.
Sztompka, P. (1996) Trust and emerging democracy: Lessons from Poland,
International Sociology, 11(1): 37-62.
Sztompka, P. (1999) Trust: A Sociological Theory, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Yin, R.K. (1989) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, London.

TASA 2003 Conference Proceedings