A comparison of the rate at which recycled water projects have been adopted in two U.S.
states, California and Florida, suggests that differences in the nature of interagency relationships
significantly influence the speed and frequency with which reuse projects are
implemented. These interagency relationships include dealings between producers, distributors
and customers of both recycled and potable water, as well as the regulation of
reuse by various supervisory bodies. A statistical analysis of California reuse projects
indicates that those involving the fewest number of agencies are most readily implemented,
i.e. the more complex the institutional arrangements, the longer it takes for projects
to be implemented, and the greater the likelihood that they will be postponed or rejected.
Surveys of the progress of reuse in the two states suggests that when rulemakers
communicate regularly with reuse agencies, develop guidelines that emphasize the value
of recycled water and standardize the application of rules through systematic permitting,
projects can be rapidly implemented as measured by the volume of water reclaimed and
reused. By contrast, when regulators maintain a more neutral position with respect to reuse
and develop regulations that emphasize the wastewater origin of the product there is a
correspondingly slower rate of project implementation. One possible explanation for this
is that although the "hands-off" approach may ensure objectivity on the part of the regulators,
it may also impart the message that the agencies charged with the responsibility of
distributing recycled water are not trustworthy, or that the water is not safe. As a tentative
conclusion, it would appear that states that require reuse of a target amount of recycled
water within a short time frame might consider adopting a regulatory approach similar
in some respects to that now used in Florida, where standardized permits are issued by
a single state agency, significant state funding is available to defray the cost of reuse and
simple institutional arrangements are developed wherever possible in lieu of more complex
multi-party agreements. Includes 16 references, table, figures.
| Edition : | Vol. - No. |
| File Size : | 1
file
, 730 KB |
| Note : | This product is unavailable in Ukraine, Russia, Belarus |
| Number of Pages : | 20 |
| Published : | 01/11/2004 |
