Making water reuse safe: A comparative analysis of the development of regulation and technology uptake in the US and Australia

Safety Science 121 (2020) 5–14

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/safety

Making water reuse safe: A comparative analysis of the development of regulation and technology uptake in the US and Australia Maitreyee Mukherjeea, Olivia Jensenb,c,

T

⁎

a

Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore LRF Institute for the Public Understanding of Risk, National University of Singapore, Singapore c Institute of Water Policy, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, 469C Bukit Timah Road, 259770, Singapore b

A B S T R A C T

Highly treated wastewater supplied for potable or non-potable purposes, or ‘water reuse,’ is a promising additional source of supply in water-scarce areas. However, the adoption of water reuse has been constrained by a lack of public acceptance of the technology, in particular for potable use. The development of regulatory frameworks for reuse may help to address safety concerns and support adoption. This paper investigates the interaction between regulation, public acceptance and technology adoption for potable reuse. It employs a Process Tracing methodology to analyse two country cases, the US and Australia, both of which have experience in successful adoption of potable reuse as well as examples of public resistance and abandonment of specific projects. The cases suggest that local, collaborative, transparent risk-based regulation contributes to increased acceptance of reuse among the public and government officials and supports take-up of the technology.

1. Introduction Water resource scarcity is a growing risk in many parts of the world, exacerbated by rapid urbanisation and increasing climatic variability. Recycled wastewater or ‘water reuse’ is a promising way to increase the availability of water resources in areas of scarcity and contribute to sustainability (Grant et al., 2012). This highly treated wastewater can be directed towards multiple purposes: most often it is used for nonpotable purposes like agricultural irrigation (Tal, 2006), industrial use (Lee and Tan, 2016), urban greening (Bichai et al., 2018) or surface water recharge (Sloan, 2013). In a small number of projects, recycled water contributes to the potable water supply either indirectly, through managed aquifer or reservoir recharge, known as Indirect Potable Reuse or IPR (Grant et al., 2012), or through direct injection to tap water supply, as in Windhoek, Namibia, referred to as Direct Potable Reuse or DPR (Du Pisani, 2006). Depending on local conditions, reuse may be more price-competitive than long-distance water transfers and reuse projects often compare favourably with desalination in their energy requirement and thus operating costs and greenhouse gas emissions (Stokes and Arpad, 2009). Advances in water treatment technologies allow for the production of high-quality recycled water that can reliably meet existing standards for drinking water. However, if the treatment process is inadequate or unreliable, residual biological and chemical contaminants in recycled water might pose a risk to human health. Although the technology can

reliably produce water of potable quality given appropriate management systems (WHO, 2017), members of the public in many places perceive health risks of recycled water to be high (Khan, 2013, Fielding, 2018). These perceptions interact with concerns about the trustworthiness of water quality information supplied and lack of trust in government and science more generally (Fielding, 2018), leading to public scepticism of the technology (Radcliffe, 2010; Bichai et al., 2018). In some cases, strong public opposition to plans to adopt water reuse, such as in Toowomba, Queensland, Australia; San Diego, California, and Tampa, Florida, USA (De Sena, 1999, Hurlimann and Dolnicar, 2009, Ross, 2014) has led governments to scale back, delay or abandon potable reuse projects and at the global level, the uptake of reuse technologies for municipal use has been limited. However, public perceptions are not permanently fixed. Some studies find evidence that perceptions of safety relating to recycled water can shift with better access to information and deliberative consultation as a result of increased levels of trust in the regulator or the operator, incremental evidence on the low level of health risks, and heightened perceptions of the benefits of reuse due to water scarcity (Russell and Lux, 2009; Po et al., 2003). The study of water reuse adoption dynamics has been mostly approached from the technological, economic, and psychological angles (Aldaco-Manner et al., 2019). There is limited research on the institutional and regulatory factors affecting adoption. Some preliminary

⁎ Corresponding author at: LRF Institute for the Public Understanding of Risk, National University of Singapore, Innovation 4.0, 3 Research Link, 117602, Singapore. E-mail address: [email protected] (O. Jensen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.08.039 Received 26 February 2019; Received in revised form 8 July 2019; Accepted 26 August 2019 0925-7535/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Safety Science 121 (2020) 5–14

M. Mukherjee and O. Jensen

findings indicate that collaboration and communication among agencies, stakeholders' familiarity with policies, and scale of agency network influence reuse uptake (Huang et al., 2017; Newig and Fritsch, 2009; Lubell and Lippert, 2011; Aldaco-Manner et al., 2019). But less is known about how the evolutionary trajectory of regulatory governance and regulatory instruments interact with perceptions to influence technology adoption. This paper addresses the inter-relationship of these factors to ask whether the development of specific health and safety regulations for water reuse has supported technology adoption via the mechanism of public trust. The study explores this through two cases, the US and Australia, focusing on water reuse for potable supply. While potable supply only constitutes a small proportion of overall water reuse, this is the area in which health and safety risks are of greatest concern and the type of reuse which has been most controversial.

safety have increased manifold as utilities have employed non-traditional sources like water reuse and desalination, and as traditional ground and surface water sources have become increasingly polluted. With the shift in water sources and treatment processes, governments and regulators have recognised a need to revise the water regulatory framework from ex-post monitoring of outputs to a risk-based regulation system (Radcliffe, 2010; Bichai et al., 2018). The process of building confidence in drinking water safety involves multiple steps (Dwyer and Bidwell, 2019). As the service provider, the utility plays a key role (Lim and Safford, 2019). Several studies find a link between trust in utilities and public acceptance of new technologies, associated with consistent and reliable service provision (Ormerod and Scott, 2013; Khan and Gerrard, 2006; Hartley, 2006; Douglas, 1992) and a reputation for public service motivation may command considerable public trust (Bickerstaff, 2004). Confidence in treatment technologies may be built through the collection and dissemination of locally relevant scientific evidence and public consultation. Lastly, agencies need to demonstrate preparedness and capacity to handle contamination incidents (Kabra and Ramesh, 2016; Dubey and Gunasekaran, 2016). However, trust can be eroded quickly by contamination incidents, as demonstrated in the Flint drinking water crisis (2014) or E. coli contamination in Romaine lettuce supply (2018) in the US. However, information provision and public engagement do not necessarily reduce perceived risks. Bickerstaff and Walker (2001), Bickerstaff (2004) and Helgeson et al. (2012) find that environmental risk perceptions depend on lived experiences, ethical beliefs, values, preferences and perceived benefits. They may also be subject to bias. Salience, the ease with which examples of a risk can be brought to mind, may increase through the provision of information, while confirmatory bias leads people to seek out and recall information that is consistent with their prior beliefs. Thus public engagement may result in polarisation of public opinion rather than convergence on a position consistent with expert risk appraisal. Drawing on the literature discussed above, we develop a hypothesised causal model of the development of water reuse regulation from a primarily output-based approach to a risk management approach with increased public engagement. The process is set out in Fig. 1. In this model, the initial driver is water scarcity, which incentivises utilities to identify innovative ways to meet demand. However, health and safety concerns prompt public resistance to the adoption of the technology. Responding to public scepticism, governments block projects or redirect projects to non-potable uses. Utilities push for the development of stronger multi-level regulatory frameworks, risk-based regulatory approaches and additional communication and consultation instruments to build public support. When the new regulatory framework has been established, public support for the technology increases. This enables the technology to be adopted at scale. In the subsequent sections, we provide a brief introduction to the method and then compare this hypothesised mechanism to the experience in two cases.

2. Development of drinking water quality regulation Regulation may be understood as a chain of processes through which norms are created and implemented among actors in a set of activities and outcomes are monitored and fed back to the authorities for further action (Scott, 2001). In practice, regulatory authority may be spread across a variety of state and non-state organisations holding different sets of information, capacities and resources (MacDonald and Richardson, 2004; Nicholls, 2010). Regulatory outcomes or effectiveness can be considered in terms of whether the regulatory system overall supports the achievement of policy objectives, while securing legitimacy and maintaining public trust (Baldwin et al., 2012). Scholars have found that the absence of supportive regulatory structures may hinder the development and adoption of new technologies (Mickwitz et al., 2008). In contrast, strict regulations may play a significant role in speeding up diffusion by incentivising or requiring their adoption as seen in energy efficiency or renewable energy markets (Blind, 2012) or by creating new markets that spur further innovation (Beise and Rennings, 2005). Regulation may also encourage innovation diffusion by providing a platform for piloting and testing or enabling organisations to build technical and managerial capacity to absorb technologies (Mickwitz et al., 2008). Further, existence of a wellstructured regulatory framework may also reduce risk perceptions by improved communication and enhanced public confidence, thus creating demand for the innovation from the public (Moon and Balasubramaniam, 2004, Rogers, 2010). Historically, drinking water quality regulation has involved the identification of a set of chemical and biological parameters and associated threshold concentrations. Regulations usually specify monitoring and reporting protocols, acceptable failure rates, enforcement mechanisms and penalties or remedial actions. These output-based regulatory tools are generally applied to piped water utilities and may be more stringent depending on the scale of the supplier or source of water used. In addition, regulations may cover input and process standards (Scott, 2001), benchmarking of practices and processes (Bernstein and Hannah, 2008) and coordination tools like consultation provisions and inter-agency agreements (Freeman and Rossi, 2011). Regulations have generally become more stringent over time, covering a wider range of parameters and specifying lower thresholds leading to the roll-out of filtration, disinfection and in some jurisdictions more sophisticated treatment technologies. Regulatory authority for drinking water supply is often fragmented across multiple levels of government. National or state agencies may set regulatory standards, state or provincial governments may be primarily responsible for monitoring and enforcement, while responsibility for implementation usually lies with municipalities or utilities. Water quality regulation therefore requires clear allocation of authority and mechanisms for coordination across government (Freeman and Rossi, 2011, Menard, 2017). In recent decades, regulatory challenges for drinking water supply

3. Methodology 3.1. Process tracing We use process tracing to assess the validity of our hypothesised causal mechanism. Process tracing is a qualitative research method increasingly applied in social science research. It is a tool for developing causal inferences through the analysis of a small number of cases by careful organisation of temporal sequences of diagnostic events to examine if they match a prior hypothesized causal mechanism (Collier, 2011). Through an extended ‘within-case analysis’ approach, it is well suited to understand how one variable influences another and to evaluate causal claims where there are a small number of cases and several causal variables of interest (George and Bennet, 2005). 6

Safety Science 121 (2020) 5–14

M. Mukherjee and O. Jensen

Fig. 1. Causal mechanism (revised) illustrating evolution of water reuse regulatory regime.

time, by tracing mechanisms, we gain a greater understanding of how causal variable A causes outcome of interest B. The method can be broken down into four steps, explained below and illustrated in Fig. 2 (Bennett, 2010; Collier, 2011). The first step in TT process tracing is to elaborate the causal mechanism to be tested. This is based on existing theory and may involve revising or adding detail to an existing theory. The steps are clearly elaborated to link A (the hypothesised cause) with B (the outcome of interest). Building a causal mechanism in process tracing is in some ways similar to the process of developing a theory of change. Next, the hypothesized causal mechanism is operationalised by elaborating on how each step in the mechanism would manifest in the empirical setting under study and identifying indicators of the presence or absence of the hypothesised steps. Then, evidence relating to plausible manifestations of each part of the mechanism is collected. The evidence may be primary or secondary and may include policy documents, reports and meeting minutes in addition to published work. Sequential evidence on the chronology of events will be of central relevance given the temporal dimension of the hypothesised causal mechanism. The final step involves assessing the inferential weight of evidence. Evidence from various sources is weighed to ascertain whether each part of the mechanism exists or does not exist in that case with a reasonable degree of confidence. For this paper, the primary sources of data collected were policy documents and reports of relevant government agencies as well as a thorough review of the secondary literature. For each case, we sought to collect all major policy and planning documents on water reuse for the period under study. These documents were systematically reviewed to develop a detailed chronology of events and to identify which government actors and other stakeholders were involved as proponents or opponents of changes to regulatory governance, regulatory instruments and the calibration of these instruments.

Fig. 2. Key steps involved in theory testing process tracing.

Process tracing may be case-oriented (exploratory) or theorybuilding or theory-testing (TT) (confirmatory), depending on the nature of the investigation (Beach and Pederson, 2011). This paper employs theory-testing process tracing in which a hypothesized causal mechanism linking the phenomena of interest is established a priori and case data are examined for evidence of the causal mechanism. By providing evidence of a mechanism linking two variables, stronger claims of causation can be made within the studied case. At the same

3.2. Case selection We apply the process tracing method to water reuse regulation in two country cases of US and Australia. These two countries both have a long track record of reliable drinking water quality regulation but plans for potable reuse were initially rejected by the public in both countries. Both countries have developed specific regulations for water reuse and adapted existing regulatory frameworks. 7

Safety Science 121 (2020) 5–14

M. Mukherjee and O. Jensen

4.3. Development of traditional regulatory tools specific to water reuse

However, US and Australian cities differ considerably from each other in terms of developmental time scale, approaches to public consultation and regulatory reforms, providing variation within and between the cases. Outcomes are also different. In the US, water reuse adoption is rising slowly in many different localities whereas development has stalled in Australia with only one IPR project currently operating.

The CWA and the SDWA are equipped with provisions that allow implementation of planned water reuse projects. These require states and utilities adopting potable water reuse to upgrade their regulatory tools to meet the basic requirements as provided by the two laws. Besides the core federal laws, EPA published non-mandatory water reuse guidelines as early as 1980, which have been updated periodically (through amendments in 1992, 2004, 2012, 2017).

4. Case 1: Development of reuse regulation in the US 4.4. Public response 4.1. Existing practises and regulatory structures prior to adoption of potable water reuse

Public acceptance of potable water reuse in the US has varied considerably between locations and has evolved over time. IPR projects in Orange County and Los Angeles in California and DPR in the Big Spring and the Wichita Falls districts in Texas have been accepted by local communities. However, there have been cases of vociferous opposition towards projects in San Diego, East Valley (Los Angeles) and Tampa city (Florida) which involved similar technologies. Key differentiating factors in outcomes appear to be management and communication approaches. The projects which adopted a strategic approach to securing support through piloting, data collection, communications with the public and other government agencies, and supporting risk management by utilities, were eventually successful in gaining public acceptance, while ad hoc projects which involved little public engagement faced more distrust and resistance (Harris-Lovett et al., 2015; EPA, 2017). Overall, Americans have diverse perceptions on water reuse adoption. A 2012 national survey in the US found that 51% of respondents agreed that recycled water produced through advanced technology is drinkable but only 30% indicated that they would drink it themselves (GE Power and Water, 2012; EPA, 2017). The major factors identified were the psychological barrier or “yuck factor,” health concerns and lack of trust in regulation (Khan, 2013).

Treated wastewater has been used for non-potable purposes in the US since the early twentieth century (Ongerth and Ongerth, 1982). Multiple small-scale schemes were developed over time at the local level in California, Florida, Washington and other states, largely for agricultural and landscape irrigation (Toor and Rainey, 2009). De facto water reuse, in which downstream cities withdraw surface water from sources into which wastewater has been disposed of by upstream users, occurs widely across the country. To protect public health and safety of downstream users, the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA) required upstream users to treat wastewater to certain basic standards before disposal. Drinking water quality in the US has been regulated at the federal level since the introduction of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in 1974, which established standards for public water supplies and their sources,1 including maximum permissible limits of specified contaminants in potable water supplies (NRC, 2012; Sanchez-Flores et al., 2016). The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) was established in 1970 as a federal agency and was tasked with setting and enforcing drinking water quality regulations. Standards are regularly updated and maintained by EPA to broaden the range of regulated contaminants. States also have the discretion to impose more stringent standards above those set by EPA. Monitoring is done at the state level.

4.5. Evolution of reuse regulation At the national level, NRC policy guidance was dramatically revised in 2012 to recommend that water reuse be considered as an option to increase future water security (NRC, 2012; Sanchez-Flores et al., 2016). This change reflected the accumulation of evidence on the safety of reuse technology gained through a series of independent long-term epidemiological studies commissioned by government (Rock et al., 2016 cited by EPA, 2017, NRC, 2012; NWRI and WRRF, 2013; NWRI, 2015, Sedlak et al., 2005; Kostich et al., 2014, 2017). Risk management approaches for drinking water regulation were first introduced in EPA guidelines in the early 2000s. Under these guidelines, service providers are responsible for actively identifying and preventing public health risks from pollutants in drinking water. EPA recommends that state governments establish or update water reuse regulations to encourage the adoption of multiple barrier treatment systems and engage in public outreach to address health concerns (EPA, 2012, 2017; NRC, 2012). EPA has continuously updated its drinking water contaminant list and thresholds through successive revisions (2004, 2012, 2017), to encompass contaminants potentially found in recycled wastewater. By 2016, 13 states had adopted specific regulatory guidelines for reuse3 (Sanchez-Flores et al., 2016). Texas and Arizona introduced their first water recycling regulations in 1997 and 2001 respectively. California established state-level water recycling goals in 1991 but formally adopted regulations mandating use of recycled water in 2009 (amended subsequently in 2013, 2018). Subsequently, California established

4.2. Adoption of reuse technology Water reuse for potable purposes has been considered by municipalities for several decades in response to growing physical water scarcity or escalating costs of alternative sources. IPR was first used in Los Angeles County’s Montebello Forebay project in 1962, followed by Orange County in 1976 (EPA website2). Both involved managed aquifer recharge. In 1978, Fairfax County (Virginia) installed a recycling plant that employed IPR for surface water augmentation. DPR was first piloted in Denver where a demonstration plant was operated for research and development purposes between 1980 and 1993 (EPA, 2012). These projects established that reclaimed water could meet SDWA standards for potable supply. This led to initiatives by EPA in the early 1980s to develop protocols and process standards for the emerging technology (EPA, 2017) and to commission long-term studies. However, the technology was still subject to considerable scepticism from government officials and the public about the long-term health effects of drinking recycled water. Guidance from the National Research Council (NRC), a federal policy research foundation, issued in 1998 adopted a precautionary approach and recommended water reuse only as a last resort when no other raw water sources were available.

1

Sources includes any natural water resources like rivers, aquifers, lakes, reservoirs and so on. 2 Water Reuse and Recycling: Community and Environmental Benefits, EPA. Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/region9/water/recycling/ (accessed 26/ 01/2019).

3 Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Texas, Massachusetts, Utah, Virginia and Washington.

8

Safety Science 121 (2020) 5–14

M. Mukherjee and O. Jensen

operated a small-scale demonstration project from 2004–6. The local regulatory authority updates the company’s operating permit and monitoring criteria to incorporate recommendations from the State Water Resource Control Board Division of Drinking Water. Furthermore, the Orange County Sanitation District employs an additional source control permit (under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) to restrict specific drug or industrial chemical disposal into their water sources (EPA, 2017; Lim and Safford, 2019). The quality of output water from the reuse plant is monitored in real-time by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and made available online. In contrast, DPR projects in Texas were developed over a short period without state-level regulation. Faced with limited water resource options, the Colorado River Municipal Water District at Big Springs set up a comprehensive feasibility study for reuse in 2005. With a vision to “reclaim 100 percent of the water, 100 percent of the time”, pilot testing was completed by 2009 and a full-scale DPR project was commissioned immediately. In 2012, faced by severe drought risk, the utility started transferring treated secondary effluent to augment raw water supply that was further treated to drinking water quality (Sloan, 2013). Similar developments were also witnessed at Wichita Falls. To overcome a severe drought, utilities approached state regulators and the public to convince them of the necessity to adopt reuse technology (EPA, 2017). Simultaneously, the state regulator, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality played a significant role by establishing stringent case-specific regulatory requirements on the utilities to assure the public of safety (Sanchez-Flores et al., 2016).

separate IPR rules in 2014 and began the process of drafting specific regulations for DPR applications in 2016 (Sanchez-Flores et al., 2016). Florida officially adopted water reuse guidelines in 2008 and introduced incentives for cities, utilities and private firms to engage in reuse by assigning water rights for recycled water for potable or nonpotable uses, provided such activities do not cause significant negative externality to downstream users (Sanchez-Flores et al., 2016). Simultaneously, utilities and local governments in water-scarce localities have engaged in extensive public communications efforts and in some cases integrated public consultation into decision-making processes (EPA, 2017; Lim and Safford, 2019). No regulations for direct potable reuse (DPR) have yet been officially adopted in the US. DPRs are currently regulated on a case-specific basis (Geritty et al., 2013). EPA has proposed a white paper on DPR evaluation using a public health surveillance framework (EPA, 2017). At the state level, California has set a deadline (AB574 Potable reuse;4 approved by the governor) to develop a DPR regulatory framework by 2023.

4.6. Outcomes Overall acceptance of potable reuse of recycled water in the US appears to have increased over time. A 2016 online survey revealed that nearly 89% of Californians accepted expansion of recycled water use (Xylem poll report, 2016). Similar results were observed by the Bay Area Council, San Francisco, where 58% respondents supported mixing of recycled water into drinking water supply (Bay Area council news release, 2015). Even in places like San Diego or Tampa, where the public had rejected potable water reuse options, attitudes appear to have changed. For example, the results of a 2017 poll in San Diego county showed that overall public confidence in water utilities had improved with 83% of respondents finding them reliable (from 65% in 2015). 59% ‘strongly’ & ‘somewhat’ believed that recycled water could be treated further for potable use, while 61% accepted blending of recycled water to enhance potable water supply (2017 Water Public Opinion Poll, San Diego County Water Authority, 2017). Water reuse technologies are under consideration or being adopted increasingly widely in the US. Fig. 3 shows the distribution of IPR and DPR projects till 2017. It shows extensive adoption in California and to a lesser extent in other arid western states. On the eastern coast, projects have been considered but have not yet been commissioned. Despite this expansion, only 7–8% of the national municipal effluent produced is reclaimed, of which planned IPR/DPR forms a negligible proportion (EPA, 2012, 2017; NRC, 2012). Comparing cases of reuse projects that have been implemented and those that have been delayed or abandoned suggests several success factors. In cases of adoption, utilities took the lead and engaged in extensive communications efforts with local elected and appointed officials and engaged the public in water reuse planning over long periods of time, allowing for learning and the development of trust alongside the development of regulation. Lack of commitment on the part of the utility was associated with non-adoption (Harriss et al., 2015, Feilding et al., 2018). In the case of Orange County, for example, a groundwater recharge system had been operating since 1976 and it was only in the late 1990s that the municipality proposed to scale this up for IPR. The Orange County Water District launched its public communication efforts nearly a decade before construction of a reuse plant began in 20085 and

4.7. Future directions The regulatory framework for water reuse in the US combines mandatory output quality standards, regulations, public outreach policies and enforcement institutions, and recommendatory guidelines on risk management. At the federal level, EPA is highly supportive of utilities engaging in potable reuse as part of a turn towards integrated water resources management (EPA, 2017). States are moving forward with the development of regulations and utilities are engaging in outreach to mobilise support for reuse. However, discrepancies in implementation are a continuing concern. To address this implementation gap, NRC (2012) recommended that federal laws (CWA and SDWA) be updated urgently with scientifically verified risk-based indicators and respective minimum acceptable contaminant limits for different category of uses to be implemented uniformly in all states. It further recommended that federal laws be revised to provide for an additional layer of federal enforcement on top of the state-level regulatory system. This in turn is expected to assure the public that appropriate checks are in place to manage any kind of public health risk from potable reuse. 5. Case 2: Development of reuse regulation in Australia 5.1. Existing practises and regulatory structures prior to adoption of potable water reuse. Water regulation in Australia is under the authority of state governments, with the federal government playing a role in establishing guidelines, including the National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) in 1992 and Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG) in 1996. ADWG provides a reference framework of standards and procedures for water utilities, water resource managers and the public regarding drinking water supply. These federal standards are not mandatory and state governments are able to define regulations based

4 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id= 201720180AB574 (accessed 26/02/2019). 5 Public outreach has been mostly a multi-step process involving- pilot projects, demonstration, political-bureaucratic-public consultation (in form of formal, informal meetings, media/ social media campaigns, outreach through newspapers, magazines, information pamphlets, science letters, school

(footnote continued) activities, public tours, etc.,) which were started well before the launch of the projects and continued to function after commissioning. 9

Safety Science 121 (2020) 5–14

M. Mukherjee and O. Jensen

Fig. 3. Distribution of IPR/DPR projects in the US till 2017. Source: EPA, 2017.

authority and state governments have the liberty to adopt enforcement regulations based on these frameworks.

on these guidelines and delineate enforcement mechanisms. 5.2. Adoption of reuse technology

5.4. Public response

Water reuse has been considered by utilities in Australia since the 2000s during the prolonged nationwide Millennium Drought of 1997–2010. The drought exacerbated existing conditions of water scarcity prompting water supply authorities to explore new technologies with the support of the federal government (McCallum, 2015). At the peak of the drought, the federal government established an AU$2 billion fund to invest in water supplies and to conduct research and development in water reuse and desalination for potable use (Radcliffe, 2010). State governments sanctioned large capital investments in this period. In 2007, the federal government further sought to incentivise onsite water recycling by setting a national target to recycle 30% of the country’s wastewater by 20156 (Jimenez and Asano, 2008; Whiteoak, 2012).

At the height of the Millennium Drought, municipal governments, water authorities and utilities moved rapidly to develop additional water sources. Several IPR and DPR projects were authorised and construction was started at this time. However, potable water reuse were virulently opposed in some cities, even at the peak of the drought when water supply restrictions were imposed on households. Surveys in that period suggested that a majority of Australians supported water reuse for agriculture, industry, business, toilet flushing, urban landscaping and environmental flows purposes, but considered the use of recycled water in drinking water to be unacceptable (Radcliffe, 2010). In Toowoomba (Queensland) and Canberra, local governments responded to public concerns by opening the decision on IPR to the public through a referendum. In both cases, the proposals were rejected by the majority of voters and IPR plans were delayed indefinitely or abandoned (Bichai et al., 2018). A second project in Queensland, the Western Corridor project, was designed to supplement the Wivenhoe Dam which supplies drinking water to the city of Brisbane through three water reuse plants and one desalination plant. In that case, surveys conducted in 2007 indicated large majority public support of 74% for recycled water to be used to augment drinking water supplies (Radcliffe, 2010) and the state government proceeded with the investment without a public referendum. However, in the following year, normal rainfall replenished the dam and there was a sharp decline in media as well as public support for the project. The project was commissioned and is operating but the use of recycled water was restricted to only non-potable purposes, although the possibility that it could be used in the future for IPR in cases of severe drought remains open (Radcliffe, 2015).

5.3. Development of traditional regulatory tools specific to water reuse The federal government made the first steps to develop a national regulatory framework specifically for reuse in the early 2000s and a comprehensive set of guidelines was published in stages since 2006 addressing health and environmental risks for potable/non-potable water reuse from diverse sources (National Water Commission, 2011). First relevant guidelines for non-potable uses were issued in 2006 (NRMMC-EPHC-AHMC, 2006a,b), followed by separate guidelines for potable uses (NRMMC-EPHC-AHMC, 2008), stormwater harvesting and reuse (NRMMC-EPHC-AHMC, 2009b), and managed aquifer recharge (NRMMC-EPHC-AHMC, 2009a). These guidelines have no enforcement 6 Recycling was loosely defined to include grey water systems and supply of reuse for non-domestic uses.

10

Safety Science 121 (2020) 5–14

M. Mukherjee and O. Jensen

responsibility of utilities to monitor and control processes as well as meeting output quality standards. The requirements of ADWG are regularly assessed and updated, most recently in August 2018 (ADWG 2011, Version 3.5, updated 2018) and states update their regulations to reflect these guidelines. Both ADWG and national water recycling guidelines strongly recommend the adoption of robust multiple barrier systems for water treatment involving potable reuse. Under the guidelines, utilities are required to adopt multi-scale risk-management strategies from the facility level upwards and to be prepared for shifts in raw water quality, operational failure etc.. Water quality and operational monitoring should be carried out at several stages in the treatment and distribution process. Utilities’ performance is continuously monitored by local and state governments.

5.5. Evolution of risk-based regulation to address public concerns Federal and state government efforts to promote reuse faded after the nationwide drought broke in 2008. However, an exception to this trend is Western Australia where drought conditions have persisted. In Perth, a managed ground aquifer recharge project began operating in 2006 as a pilot program and was sanctioned for large-scale production upgrade in 2014 under state and local regulation. The main water utility in Western Australia, Water Corporation (WC), began formulating a long-term strategic, risk-based framework for water reuse adoption in the early 2000s under developing drought conditions (Bichai et al., 2018). By 2005, WC had developed a 50-year strategic plan for water security which identified potable reuse as a key source and laid out a long-term proposal for adoption. A small-scale managed aquifer recharge trial project was launched in 2006. This was intended to develop knowledge on technical, managerial, regulatory and public communication aspects of IPR. Data were collected from 2009 to 2012 to provide evidence on the quality and reliability of the recycled water (Groundwater Replenishment Trial Final Report, 2013). WC then took the decision to develop a full-scale plant and construction began in 2014, with high-level political support coming from the WA Water Minister. A framework for monitoring and regulation was designed to manage risks and provide reassurance to the public. As WC had initiated water reuse before national guidelines were established for aquifer recharge, the utility partnered with key state regulatory authorities to develop regulations. WC formed an Inter-Agency Working Group (IAWG), comprising officials from the departments of health, water and environmental regulation to develop the regulatory framework. An intensive and extensive monitoring programme was established covering 340 water quality parameters. (Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence Project Report, 2014). In addition, public communications efforts were initiated two years before the commencement of the pilot, and the pilot itself contributed to building public confidence while gaining credibility with state regulators, government officials, academic experts and ultimately with political leaders. High benefits perceptions due to extended drought conditions, technical aspects of the project, notably the long retention of the recycled water underground, and an effective strategic communications approach contributed to public confidence in IPR in Perth (Horne, 2016; Bichai et al., 2018). Prior to engaging in water reuse, the Water Corporation had established a good safety track record. Further, its public image as a non-profit, apolitical organisation appears to have helped in maintaining sufficient public support (Po et al., 2003, Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence Project Report, 2014).

6. Discussion We proposed a causal model in which water scarcity drove the adoption of water recycling technologies at the local level, based on traditional output based regulatory tools. This triggered negative public reaction over serious health concerns that in turn motivated the development of comprehensive risk-based regulation, to ensure transparency and health and safety assurance, finally leading to public acceptance and technology adoption at scale. In this section we consider the extent to which the case studies are consistent with the model. 6.1. Scarcity as the key driver Water scarcity was a key factor motivating the adoption of water reuse at local level in the US. In that case, municipal governments and utilities facing local water shortages and rising costs of alternative sources initiated water reuse projects even within a restrictive national regulatory framework which framed reuse as the technology of last resort. Local water utilities face a strong motivation to engage in water reuse as they have a statutory responsibility to provide water services. As a result, they may be less risk averse than state or national-level regulators who do not have a similar responsibility to ensure supply. In Australia, local and state-level exploration of reuse occurred alongside national-level efforts to incentivise the uptake of water reuse through subsidised finance, the development of targeted regulations covering different sources and uses of treated wastewater and policy targets for water recycling. In this case, the wide impact of the Millennium drought across the country triggered a federal-level response, which contrasts with local water scarcity problems in the US. When the drought broke in eastern Australia, federal government initiatives were phased out and the impetus to develop regulatory frameworks in eastern states dissipated, even though the drought continued in Western Australia. Water scarcity played a second important indirect role in the case studies, increasing the perceived benefits of water reuse on the part of the public and thus making the public more likely to accept water reuse projects. This is suggested by the DPR projects in Texas as well as the successful aquifer recharge project of Perth, where the utilities faced no viable alternatives to ensure supply, thus pushing the public and elected representatives to accept water reuse even in the absence of an established state-level regulatory framework. The link between scarcity and public support for water reuse adoption was evident when scarcity declined, as observed in the survey data from Queensland.

5.6. Outcomes National-level policy attention and support for potable reuse declined after 2010 once above-normal rainfall returned in eastern Australia. The lack of demand for recycled water discouraged further investment and the national coordination platform that was created at the time of the drought emergency was dissolved. The Ministerial Council on Environment and Water, and National Water Commission ceased to function, funds were curtailed, and the issue of IPR/DRP receded in the media as well as public debates. Currently, the extent of water recycling varies widely between states, with an overall steady decrease (nationally estimated at 6%) in recycled water demand due to abundant rainfall in consecutive years (National Performance Report, 2016-17). Perth is the only operational example of IPR in Australia.

6.2. Multi-level federal, state and local government involvement Local utilities have played an interesting role in initiating technology adoption, building coalitions to generate political and public support and to develop regulatory and non-regulatory policy tools. This is especially clear in Perth, in Orange County and in the Texas projects, where utilities took the lead in initiating discussions with local government, local and state regulators and scientists to build consensus on

5.7. Future directions Alongside regulatory developments specifically related to reuse, the national drinking water quality framework of ADWG has shifted towards a water safety planning approach, putting more emphasis on the 11

Safety Science 121 (2020) 5–14

M. Mukherjee and O. Jensen

6.5. Public assurance through non-regulatory tools: communications, information availability, preparedness

a regulatory framework, indicators and monitoring procedures. However, a parallel counter narrative was also observed in both cases. Although utilities often drove the demand for water reuse adoption, there was also evidence of top-down regulatory development in response to growing water scarcity threats, with federal and state regulators in both the US and Australia concurrently introducing and updating water reuse guidelines. In addition, there has been continued coordination between central, state, and local agencies in assuring the public over the legitimacy as well as reliability of regulatory institutions and procedures at the national level. This dual flow of information between utilities, state regulators and communities was clearly in evidence in Orange County and in Perth.

Long-term public engagement strategies appear to have been useful in building public trust in the technology as well as credibility of the utilities and regulators. Public engagement in the successful cases has been mostly a multi-step process involving pilot projects, demonstration programs, regular political-bureaucratic-public consultation, media outreach, along with transparent access to information. These engagement processes started well before the launch of projects and continued to function even after their successful implementation. Such a multi-level regulatory governance system, involving state, local government and utility coordination resulted in increased transparency of information, while ensuring capacity building, preparedness and adaptability for utilities to handle a diverse set of risks.

6.3. Public reaction In early reuse projects, there was no regulatory barrier to the adoption of potable water reuse if the required drinking water quality parameters were maintained (EPA, 2012, 2017; NHMRC, 2011). However, the main hurdle that surfaced during implementation of water reuse was the inadequacy of the traditional output-based drinking water guidelines to provide adequate reassurance to the public and elected officials about the potential health risks associated with exposure to unknown or unmonitored contaminants in recycled water. Public perceptions of risk appear to have been magnified in cases where the media or elected officials cast doubt on the reliability and trustworthiness of utilities and expert advisors. In the cases of Toowoomba and Canberra, the provision of additional scientific information from the official government sources does not appear to have led to a shift in risk perceptions amongst sceptical groups and additional public consultation led to the polarisation of opinion (Fielding et al., 2018). In the cases of successful adoption, efforts to gain public trust through transparency and consultation seem to have been initiated preemptively rather than in response to negative public reaction. Officials in Orange County, Perth, Big Springs and Witchita Falls appear to have voluntarily adopted risk management regulations and intensive monitoring mechanisms to raise public understanding of the technology and to generate trust.

7. Conclusions The findings of the paper suggest several policy recommendations which may be useful to policy-makers at the local, state or national level when seeking to promote the consideration of water reuse as one of a range of water supply options. Firstly, multi-level regulation can support utilities acting as the primary proponents of water reuse projects. Specific regulations issued at higher levels of government on treatment processes and risk management procedures for aquifer recharge, reservoir injection and DPR will reduce the administrative burden on local regulators drafting permits for specific projects. This can help to give municipal governments and the public adequate assurance about the technology, while being consistent with the trajectory of development in water quality regulation overall. State and national-level regulators also have an important role to play in monitoring processes and output quality, along with making comparative data publicly available to increase trust in the objectivity of data and to incentivise quality-based competition among utilities. Simultaneously, utilities need to maintain trust in their technical operations through sound water safety plans to detect and respond quickly to potential contamination. Secondly, stakeholders at all levels of government should recognise that perceptions of technology risk change slowly. Consequently, they should proceed prudently with a well-considered balance of regulatory and non-regulatory tools. Implementing small-scale pilots accompanied by broad consultation and communications activities well in advance of the adoption of the technology at scale gives time for the public to observe a technology’s performance track record and to develop their own evidence-based judgements about safety. As the developers of most municipal water reuse projects, utilities can learn from each other about effective strategies to mobilise support. The cases studied here suggest that communications efforts need to be directed towards government stakeholders at multiple levels as well as the public. Initially, a collaborative approach to regulation involving local regulatory bodies may help to design a more coherent regulatory framework. Coordination with regulators at higher levels of government is essential for utilities which are front-runners in the adoption of the technology to ensure that these regulators have the information and assurances they need to approve projects. This paper has focused primarily on potable reuse, which we recognise is the most controversial type of water reuse. Many cities may be able to address water scarcity challenges effectively by developing water reuse for industrial purposes, which raises fewer health and safety issues and offers potential efficiencies for industries that require high-grade process water. However, this depends on the presence of suitable industrial customers in the vicinity of the water reuse plant. Water reuse for agricultural irrigation, on the other hand, does imply health and safety risks. This is illustrated in the case of contamination of romaine lettuce in the US in late 2018 (CDC, 2019). The use of contaminated irrigation sources in farms had led to a serious outbreak of E.

6.4. Evolution of new risk-based regulatory tools and strategic timing of implementation In the cases studied, risk management regulation has been made additional to output-based regulations instead of replacing them. This suggests that the overall regulatory burden on water utilities is rising. In contrast to the hypothesised mechanism, this shift has not been primarily driven by the adoption of water reuse technologies but as a result of increasing awareness of the number and nature of contaminants in traditional surface and ground water supplies which are not removed by standard secondary water treatment. The proliferation of contaminants has made it prohibitively costly for utilities to detect all potentially harmful contaminants and impossible for regulators to define and update quality parameters to keep pace with this proliferation. This has led to increasing recognition of the need for a shift in regulatory approach for water quality supervision towards process monitoring and multi-barrier systems. Consequently, the successful water reuse projects have developed over a long time-scale with careful strategic planning and step-by-step execution of each phase. The utilities incorporated small-scale trials to develop their technical knowhow and risk management capacity. Once a threshold of support was achieved, utilities started scaling up reuse projects, while still maintaining regular public communication through all possible channels. As scientific awareness on pollutants evolved, the utilities kept on updating their regulatory parameters to compile comprehensive risk management. 12

Safety Science 121 (2020) 5–14

M. Mukherjee and O. Jensen

coli, resulting in a blanket official ban of all romaine lettuce stock across US and Canada. Such events may feed into a public discourse linking all types of reuse with health scares and undermine public confidence in the effectiveness of the regulatory regime for water reuse. This intersection between water safety regulation and food safety could be usefully explored in further research.

Gerrity, D., Pecson, B., Trusell, R.S., Trusell, R.R., 2013. Potable reuse trains throughout the world. Water Supply: Res. Technol.-AQUA 62 (6), 321–338. Groundwater Replenishment Trial Final Report May, 2013. Water Corporation. Available at: https://www.watercorporation.com.au/-/media/files/residential/water-supply/ gwrt/gwrt-final-report.pdf (accessed 14/2/2019). Harris-Lovett, S.R., Binz, C., Sedlak, D.L., Kiparsky, M., Truffer, B., 2015. Beyond user acceptance: A legitimacy framework for potable water reuse in California. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (13), 7552–7561. Hartley, Troy W., 2006. Public Perception and Participation in Water Reuse. Desalination 187 (1-3), 115–126. Helgeson, J., van der Linden, S., Chabay, I., 2012. The role of knowledge, learning and mental models in public perceptions of climate change related risks. Learn. Sustain. Times Accelerating Change 329–346. Horne, J., 2016. Policy issues confronting Australian urban water reuse. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 32 (4), 573–589. Huang, C., Chen, T., Yi, H., Xu, X., Chen, S., Chen, W., 2017. Collaborative environmental governance, inter-agency cooperation and local water sustainability in China. Sustainability 9 (12), 2305. Hurlimann, A., Dolnicar, S., 2009. When public opposition defeats alternative water projects - The case of Toowoomba Australia. Water Res. 44 (1), 287–297. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.09.020. Jimenez, B., Asano, T. (Eds.), 2008. Water Reuse: An International Survey of Current Practice, Issues and Needs. IWA Publishing. Kabra, G., Ramesh, A., 2016. Information technology, mutual trust, flexibility, agility, adaptability: Understanding their linkages and impact on humanitarian supply chain management performance. Risk, Hazards Crisis Public Policy 7 (2), 79–103. Khan, S., 2013. Drinking Water Through Recycling: The Benefits and Costs of Supplying Direct to the Distribution System. Report of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering funded by the Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence through the Commonwealth Government’s Water for the Future initiative. Accessed on September 28, 2017 from https://www.atse.org.au/Documents/ Publications/Reports/Water/drinking-water-through-recycling-full-report.pdf. Khan, S.J., Gerrard, L.E., 2006. Stakeholder communications for successful water reuse operations. Desalination 187 (1–3), 191–202. Kostich, M.S., Batt, A.L., Lazorchak, J.M., 2014. Concentrations of prioritized pharmaceuticals in effluents from 50 large wastewater treatment plants in the US and implications for risk estimation. Environ. Pollut. 184, 354–359. Kostich, M.S., Flick, R.W., Batt, A.L., Mash, H.E., Boone, J.S., Glassmeyer, S.T., 2017. Aquatic concentrations of chemical analytes compared to ecotoxicity estimates. Sci. Total Environ. 579, 1649–1657. Lee, H., Tan, T.P., 2016. Singapore’s experience with reclaimed water: NEWater. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 32 (4), 611–621. Lim, K., Safford, H., 2019. California Waterblog. Available at: https:// californiawaterblog.com/2019/01/20/improving-public-perception-of-water-reuse/ (accessed 2/2/2019). Lubell, M., Lippert, L., 2011. Integrated regional water management: a study of collaboration or water politics-as-usual in California, USA. Int. Rev. Admin. Sci. 77 (1), 76–100. MacDonald, L., Richardson, A., 2004. Identity, appropriateness and the construction of regulatory space: The formation of the public accountant’s council of Ontario. Acc. Organ. Soc. 29 (5/6), 489–524. McCallum, T., 2015. Kalkallo: A Case Study in Technological Innovation amidst Complex Regulation. Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities, Monash University, Clayton, VIC Available at: https://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/ toolbox/case-studies/australia-and-oceania/kalkallo-stromwater-harvesting.pdf. Ménard, C., 2017. Meso-institutions: The variety of regulatory arrangements in the water sector. Utilities Policy 49, 6–19. Mickwitz, P., Hyvättinen, H., Kivimaa, P., 2008. The role of policy instruments in the innovation and diffusion of environmentally friendlier technologies: popular claims versus case study experiences. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (1), S162–S170. Moon, W., Balasubramanian, S.K., 2004. Public attitudes toward agrobiotechnology: The mediating role of risk perceptions on the impact of trust, awareness, and outrage. Rev. Agric. Econ. 26 (2), 186–208. National Research Council, NRC, 2012. Water Reuse: Potential for Expanding the Nation's Water Supply Through Reuse of Municipal Wastewater. National Academies Press. National Water Commission, 2011. Urban Water in Australia: Future Directions. NWC, Canberra, Australia. National Water Research Institute (NWRI) and WateReuse Research Foundation (WRRF), 2013. Examining the Criteria for Direct Potable Reuse. WRRF 11-02. NWRI 2013-01. National Water Research Institute (NWRI), 2015. Framework for Direct Potable Reuse. Sponsored by the American Water Works Association (AWWA), Water Environment Foundation (WEF), and WateReuse Research Foundation. WRRF. Alexandria, VA. National Performance Report, 2016-17. Urban Water Utilities. Bureau of Meteorology, Australian Government. Available at: http://www.bom.gov.au/water/npr/docs/ 2016-17/nationalPerformanceReport_2016_17_urban_water_utilitiesHighRes.pdf (accessed 15/2/2019). Newig, J., Fritsch, O., 2009. Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level–and effective? Environ. Policy Governance 19 (3), 197–214. Nicholls, A., 2010. Institutionalizing social entrepreneurship in regulatory space: Reporting and disclosure by community interest companies. Acc. Organ. Soc. 35 (4), 394–415. NRMMC-EPHC-AHMC, 2009a. Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Risks. Phase 2: Managed Aquifer Recharge. Australian Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Environment Protection and Heritage Council, Australian Health Minister’s Conference, Canberra, Australia. NRMMC-EPHC-AHMC, 2009b. Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing

Appendix A. Supplementary material Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.08.039. References Aldaco-Manner, L., Mohtar, R., Portney, K., 2019. Analysis of four governance factors on efforts of water governing agencies to increase water reuse in the San Antonio Region. Sci. Total Environ. 647, 1498–1507. Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence Project Report, 2014. Global Potable Reuse Case Study 7: Beenyup Groundwater Replenishment Trial, University of New South Wales. Available at: http://legacywater360.server309.com/wp-content/ uploads/2015/07/WQ-Case-Study-7-Beenyup-GWRT-1008151.pdf (accessed 14/2/ 2019). Baldwin, R., Martin, C., Martin, L., 2012. Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice. Oxford University Press on Demand. Bay Area Council, 2015. 2015 Bay Area Council Poll: Residents Say They Are Already Conserving What They Can; Want More Recycling, Desal and Dams. Available at: http://documents.bayareacouncil.org/RELEASE_2015_BayAreaCouncilPoll_Drought_ Water_062415.pdf (accessed 7/2/2019). Beach, D., Pedersen, R., 2011. What is Process-Tracing Actually Tracing? The Three Variants of Process Tracing Methods and Their Uses and Limitations. Beise, M., Rennings, K., 2005. Lead markets and regulation: a framework for analyzing the international diffusion of environmental innovations. Ecol. Econ. 52 (1), 5–17. Bennett, A., 2010. Process tracing and causal inference. 2010 In: Brady, Henry, Collier, David (Eds.), Rethinking Social Inquiry Rowman and Littlefield, second ed. . Bernstein, S., Hannah, E., 2008. Non-state global standard setting and the WTO: legitimacy and the need for regulatory space. J. Int. Econ. Law 11 (3), 575–608. Bichai, F., Grindle, A.K., Murthy, S.L., 2018. Addressing barriers in the water-recycling innovation system to reach water security in arid countries. J. Clean. Prod. 171, S97–S109. Bickerstaff, K., Walker, G., 2001. Public understandings of air pollution: the ‘localisation’of environmental risk. Global Environ. Change 11 (2), 133–145. Bickerstaff, K., 2004. Risk perception research: socio-cultural perspectives on the public experience of air pollution. Environ. Int. 30 (6), 827–840. Blind, K., 2012. The influence of regulations on innovation: A quantitative assessment for OECD countries. Res. Policy 41 (2), 391–400. CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019. Food Safety Alert. Outbreak of E. coli Infections Linked to Romaine Lettuce. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/ 2018/o157h7-11-18/. Collier, D., 2011. Understanding process tracing. PS: Polit. Sci. Polit. 44 (4), 823–830. DeSena, M., 1999. Public opposition sidelines indirect potable reuse projects. Water Environ. Technol. 11, 16–18. Douglas, Mary, 1992. Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. Routledge, London and New York. Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., 2016. The sustainable humanitarian supply chain design: agility, adaptability and alignment. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 19 (1), 62–82. Du Pisani, P.L., 2006. Direct reclamation of potable water at Windhoek's Goreangab reclamation plant. Desalination 188 (1–3), 79–88. Dwyer, J., Bidwell, D., 2019. Chains of trust: Energy justice, public engagement, and the first offshore wind farm in the United States. Energy Res. Social Sci. 47, 166–176. EPA, 2012. Guidelines for Water Reuse. Jointly produced by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Wastewater Management, Office of Water Washington, D.C.; National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio U.S.; Agency for International Development Washington, D.C. Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/ merrimackstation/pdfs/ar/AR-1530.pdf (accessed 25/01/2019). EPA, 2017. Potable Reuse Compendium. Produce by Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-01/documents/ potablereusecompendium_3.pdf (accessed 25/01/2019). Fielding, K.S., Dolnicar, S., Schultz, T., 2018. Public acceptance of recycled water. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 1–36. Freeman, J., Rossi, J., 2011. Agency coordination in shared regulatory space. Harv. L. Rev. 125, 1131. Grant, S.B., Saphores, J.D., Feldman, D.L., Hamilton, A.J., Fletcher, T.D., Cook, P.L., Deletic, A., 2012. Taking the “waste” out of “wastewater” for human water security and ecosystem sustainability. Science 337 (6095), 681–686. George, A.L., Bennett, A., 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. GE Power and Water, 2012. GE Water Reuse Survey: Executive Summary of U.S. Findings. Available at: https://desalinationbiz.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/GE_Water_ Reuse_Survey_Executive_Summary_US_Findings.pdf (accessed 14/02/2019).

13

Safety Science 121 (2020) 5–14

M. Mukherjee and O. Jensen

#4508. Water Research Foundation (WRF), Denver, Colo. Rogers, E.M., 2010. Diffusion of Innovations. Simon and Schuster. Ross, V.L., Fielding, K.S., Louis, W.R., 2014. Social trust, risk perceptions and public acceptance of recycled water: Testing a social-psychological model. J. Environ. Manage. 137, 61–68. Russell, S., Lux, C., 2009. Getting over yuck: moving from psychological to cultural and sociotechnical analyses of responses to water recycling. Water Policy 11 (1), 21–35. Sanchez-Flores, R., Conner, A., Kaiser, R.A., 2016. The regulatory framework of reclaimed wastewater for potable reuse in the United States. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 32 (4), 536–558. Scott, C., 2001. Analysing regulatory space: fragmented resources and institutional design. Public law 283–305. Sedlak, D., Pinkston, K., Huang, C., 2005. Occurrence Survey of Pharmaceutically Active Compounds. Project #2617. AWWA Research Foundation and WateReuse Foundation, Denver, CO. Sloan, D., 2013. Direct Raw Water Blending in Big Spring. 2013 Direct Potable Reuse Specialty Conference Presentation. Stokes, J.R., Arpad, H., 2009. Energy and air emission effects of water supply. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (8), 2680–2687. https://doi.org/10.1021/es801802h. Tal, A., 2006. Seeking sustainability: Israel's evolving water management strategy. Science 313 (5790), 1081–1084. Toor, G.S., Rainey, D.P., 2009. History and current status of reclaimed water use in Florida. Univ. of Florida Coop. Ext. Serv. SL308. Whiteoak, K., Jones, P., Pickering, P., 2012. Progressing against the National Target of 30% of Australia's Wastewater Being Recycled by 2015 (Report Prepared for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC)). Marsden Jacob Associates, Australia. WHO (World Health Organization), 2017. Potable reuse: guidance for producing safe drinking-water. Available at https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/ publications/potable-reuse-guidelines/en/ (accessed 7/2/2019). Xylem, 2016. New survey reveals Californians’ overwhelming support for recycled water as a long-term drought solution. Available at: https://www.xylem.com/en-CA/aboutxylem/newsroom/press-releases/new-survey-reveals-californians-overwhelmingsupport-for-recycled-water-as-a-long-term-drought-solution/ (accessed 7/2/2019).

Health and Environmental Risks. Phase 2: Stormwater Harvesting and Reuse. Australian Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Environment Protection and Heritage Council, Australian Health Minister’s Conference, Canberra, Australia. NRMMC-EPHC-EHMC, 2008. Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Risks. Phase 2: Augmentation of Drinking Water Supplies. Australian Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Environment Protection and Heritage Council, Australian Health Minister’s Conference, Canberra, Australia. NRMMC-EPHC-AHMC, 2006a. Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Risks. Phase 1. Australian Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Environment Protection and Heritage Council, Australian Health Minister’s Conference, Canberra, Australia. NRMMC-EPHC-AHMC, 2006b. Overview of the Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Risks, 2006. National water Quality Management Strategy. Australian Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Environment Protection and Heritage Council, Australian Health Minister’s Conference, Canberra, Australia. NHMRC, NRMMC, 2011. National Health and Medical Research Council, National Resource Management Ministerial Council, Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Drinking Water Guidelines National Water Quality Management Strategy. Canberra. Ongerth, H.J., Ongerth, J.E., 1982. Health consequences of wastewater reuse. Annu. Rev. Public Health 3 (1), 419–444. Ormerod, K.J., Scott, C.A., 2013. Drinking wastewater: Public trust in potable reuse. Sci. Technol. Human Values 38 (3), 351–373. Po, M., Nancarrow, B.E., Kaercher, J.D., 2003. Literature review of factors influencing public perceptions of water reuse. Radcliffe, J.C., 2010. Evolution of water recycling in Australian cities since 2003. Water Sci. Technol. 62 (4), 792–802. Radcliffe, J.C., 2015. Water recycling in Australia–during and after the drought. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 1 (5), 554–562. Rock, C.M., Snyder, S., Amador, J., Hooper, J., Vandegrift, J., Osgood, J., da Silva, A., Bell, K., 2016. Assessment of Techniques to Evaluate and Demonstrate the Safety of Water from Direct Potable Reuse Treatment Facilities: Literature Review. Project

14