You are on page 1of 19

Annals of the American Association of Geographers

ISSN: 2469-4452 (Print) 2469-4460 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raag21

Structuring Hydrosocial Relations in Urban Water
Governance

Joshua J. Cousins

To cite this article: Joshua J. Cousins (2017): Structuring Hydrosocial Relations in
Urban Water Governance, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, DOI:
10.1080/24694452.2017.1293501

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1293501

Published online: 12 Apr 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=raag21

Download by: [University of Newcastle, Australia] Date: 13 April 2017, At: 05:47

Both cities face considerably different water resource chal- lenges in the United States but are at the forefront of developing comprehensive and progressive urban water governance programs. 每个架构皆企图组织水资源社会关系. and hydro-pragmatist. Each of these represents a particular understanding of how hydrosocial relations should proceed. 城市新陈代 谢. 但结果却提供了去政治化的策略. identifico cuatro visiones de relaciones hidro-sociales: hidro-reformistas. Consensus. 及其对于更具包容性的环境治理型式与决策的意涵。我在经验上聚焦芝加哥和洛杉矶的 暴雨水治理. and the role of new institutions and rules to govern stormwater. They all align around shared framings of integrated management and the utilization of the best available science and technology to drive decision-making. sin embargo. January 2017 Published by Taylor & Francis. 0(0) 2017. of market and economic incentives. 但却同时位于发展综合且进步的城市水资源管理计画的前沿。我于本文中. Empıricamente. Key Words: infrastructure. Dartmouth College This article concentrates on how hydro-social relations are differentially structured across technical experts engaged within diverse and multiple networks of institutional and bureaucratic practice and the implications this has for more inclusive forms of environmental governance and decision-making. I identify four visions of hydrosocial relations: hydro-reformist. esconde diferencias fundamentales entre los variados grupos de experticia. pero estan en la vanguardia del desarrollo de programas urbanos amplios y progresistas sobre gobernanza del agua. I argue that each frame looks to structure hydrosocial relations to fit their own vision but consequently offer apolitical strategies that reduce water quality and quantity problems to their technical and hydrological components. I empirically focus on stormwater governance in Chicago and Los Angeles as a means to capture the range of geographical and insti- tutional variations in environmental knowledge. Ecosystems and Society Program and Department of Geography and Environmental Studies Program. Las diferencias se centran en la efectividad percibida de los diferentes tipos de intervenciones infraestructurales. LLC. July 2016. 还有管理暴雨水的新制度与规范的角色。我 主张. 政治生态学. . In the article. me enfoco en la gobernanza del agua lluvia en Chicago y Los Angeles  como medio de captar el ambito de variaciones geograficas e institucionales en el conocimiento ambiental. hidro-gerenciales. Cousins Ecology. hydro-rationalist. 将 水质与水量问题简化成他们的技术与水文构成。 关键词: 基础建设. pp. pero consecuentemente ofrece estrategias apolıticas que reducen Annals of the American Association of Geographers. 作为捕捉环境知识中的地理与制度变异范畴的方法。这两个城市在美国面临相当不同的水 资源挑战. Cada uno de estos tipos de visiones representa un entendimiento particular sobre c omo deben proceder las relaciones hidro-sociales. En el artıculo. final acceptance. Evolution. water governance. hidro-racionalistas e hidro-pragmaticas. 如何在参与各异且多样的制度与官僚实践网络的技术专家之间.Structuring Hydrosocial Relations in Urban Water Governance Joshua J. Differences center on the perceived effective- ness of different types of infrastructural interventions. Sostengo que cada marco busca estructurar las relaciones hidro-sociales de acuerdo con su propia vision. 水资源管理。 La atencion se orienta en este artıculo a establecer como se estructuran diferencialmente las relaciones hidro- sociales entre diferentes expertos tecnicos involucrados dentro de diversas y multiples redes de practica institu- cional y burocratica. political ecology. 本文聚焦水资源—社会关系. 暴雨水. 以及水资源务实主义。每一个愿 景皆呈现对于水资源社会关系应如何进行的特定理解。它们共享了整合式管理和使用可取得的最佳科 学与技术来进行决策之架构。但共识掩盖了这些多样专家团体之间的根本差异。这些差异集中在其认 为不同类别的基础建设介入以及市场与经济诱因的有效性. En lo que concierne a los recursos hıdricos. however. 1–18 Ó 2017 by American Association of Geographers Initial submission. masks fundamental differences among the varying groups of expertise. de los incentivos de mercado y economicos. stormwater. las dos ciudades enfrentan en los Estados Unidos retos considerable- mente diferentes. 以不同的 方式进行组织. y a ver las implicaciones que esto tiene para formas mas abiertas de gobernanza ambiental y toma de decisiones. hydro-man- agerial. 指认四大水文社 会关系的愿景: 水资源改革主义、水资源管理主义、水资源关系主义. Todas ellas estan alineadas alrededor de marcos compartidos de manejo integrado y de la utilizacion de la mejor ciencia y tecnologıa dis- ponible que oriente la toma de decisiones. y del papel que tienen las nuevas instituciones y reglas para gobernar el agua lluvia. 使其服膺自身的愿景. January 2017. El consenso. revised submission. urban metabolism.

such as storm vention that is intentionally designed to use drains. public involvement. often focused on channeling large volumes of stormwater away through green infrastructure (GI) or low-impact devel- from the city through conveyance systems and empha. Nonstructural BMPs focus on devel- policy that would run systematically and efficiently. including landowners. however. The legisla- tion set national policy to develop programs to control point and nonpoint sources of pollution. this creates a multilevel governance during the Progressive Era conflicted with concerns system where connections between vertical tiers of over water quality. The diffuse forms of urbanization. and led to little progress in addressing stormwater and from water supply to notions of urban sustainabil. community groups. Karvonen 2011). Cousins 2016). stormwater presents a particularly Amendments to the CWA in 1987 helped resolve this unique management challenge for cities. whereas structural BMPs entail physical to impose order on the urban landscape through rational changes to infrastructure or the landscape to reduce planning (Scott 1998).2 Cousins los problemas de calidad y cantidad del agua a sus componentes tecnicos e hidrologicos. profoundly influenced the relationship retention and recharge. political. Stormwater. In flood control in most cases. [EPA] 2005). Influenced by Phase II of the between stormwater and the city. animals. and pol- institutions meant to deal with societal problems and lution prevention (Environmental Protection Agency policy making through objective expert management. stormwater management. The legacies of these interventions to direct the The decentralized and distributed character of these flows of stormwater and create a systematic and efficient infrastructural interventions to manipulate the flows urban metabolism appear in the infrastructural forms and of stormwater enroll a wide range of stakeholders into bureaucratic functions of the modern city. The introduction of this legislation marked a transformations of how society and water interrelate break from many of the traditional approaches to (Bakker 2014. GI is one type of infrastructural inter- sized centralized structural approaches. that focus on local source control through on-site in particular. nesses. These efforts typically center on devel- This new structure placed engineers in government oping structural and nonstructural best management bureaucracies to design management systems and public practices (BMPs). through the 1970s and 1980s (Karvonen 2011). ity and resilience. opment (LID). CWA to implement “minimum control measures. Linton and Budds 2014. the approaches advocated the United States. and a range of government agencies. how- often overlooked but integral part of these urban eco. state. 2013).” cit- social and environmental problems came to the fore of ies are beginning to experiment with ways to increase policy making as ever more complex. sewers. States with the 1972 passage of the Clean Water Act regional. Progressive Era reforms. necessitating the public education and outreach. and rules of humans to create novel managing aquatic discharges of pollutants. Engineers and technical experts the environmental impact of stormwater. (CWA) that initiated a basic regulatory structure for C water. busi- Although the increased efficiency of urban storm. Usually this meant an expansion of bureaucratic tion and postconstruction site runoff control. is an character of nonpoint sources and urban runoff. national) alongside horizontally . ities are complex ecosystems where plants. construc- them. social norms. which favored centralized Traditionally. Palabras clave: infraes- tructura. and treatment facilities (Porse ecological processes to retain and treat stormwater. in the United States sought to reduce the impacts of Recent approaches to stormwater management urban flooding or to mitigate public health concerns incorporate decentralized and distributed methods (Melosi 2000. and other elements of the material world come face-to-face with the poli- tics. ever. and economic control to enable ment. need for improved organizational structures to address illicit discharge detection and elimination. From flood risk to water quality. Overcoming by establishing a permitting program—the National and negotiating the challenges presented by water’s Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)— multiple roles and functions requires particular modes to establish minimum standards for stormwater treat- of social. the governance process. metabolismo urbano. ecologıa polıtica. created enormous challenges for municipalities logical relationships. nongovernmental organiza- water metabolisms improved sanitary conditions and tions (NGOs). The oping ordinances and education initiatives to improve emergent form of technocratic decision-making sought water quality. approaches to stormwater management “end-of-pipe” solutions. basins. This came to fruition in the United government form a hierarchical structure (local. During this period. gobernanza del agua. agua lluvia.

Relations ual and institutionally based subject positions and competing interests in how to manage. and to what effect on prise the hydrosocial cycle influence how water circu- urban stormwater governance? lates as a resource through nature and society (Bakker To answer this question. it is a material flow that unevenly circulates tional and bureaucratic practice come to different through the city and. Cousins and Newell 2015. It is at once a nui- sance. for example. control. Finewood and Holi. This is despite new rules and regula. form through geographically and institutionally based Meehan (2013. technologies. I engage with scholarship 2003). humans. and non- “horizontal fragmentation” across levels of government. and institutional infrastructures to reori. and to what consequence on nance. lives as it flows across the landscape. and Saurı 2013. task forces. stormwater remains a fluid object. In many cases. This mul- tiplicity reflects the ways in which stormwater is a social Urban Metabolisms and Hydrosocial and political construct. envi. allows for a broader analysis of subject formation that Research at the interface of urban political ecology accounts for variations in environmental practices and and hydrosociality drawing on the metabolism meta- geographical differences but also how negotiations phor excels at showcasing the complex networks of between diverse forms of expertise come to shape power that entangle nature. I then Although recent shifts in urban stormwater manage. of how hydrosocial relations should proceed. and a resource. a commodity. on the one experts situated within diverse networks of institu. the ways hydrosocial relations are structured. embodying a plurality of individ. and technology urban political ecologies. approach to water theft where “the monitoring and albeit through apolitical strategies that reduce water tracking [of] infrastructure and bodies” maintains quality and quantity problems to their technical hydrosocial order and disciplines informal . ronmental advocacy groups. water systems interact. and informal networks (Betsill and ical ecology at the interface of urban metabolism and Bulkeley 2006. March 2015). 170). Porse 2013. and toward stormwater in cities with different political. as well as those infrastructures. this research governance (Cousins 2016). social practices. The results and dis- logic of urban drainage. political. and environmental practice structure divergent visions ent stormwater flows. review stormwater challenges in Los Angeles and Chi- ment signal a pronounced shift from the Progressive Era cago before outlining the methods. Specifically. Hydrosocial Relations in Urban Water Governance 3 (nonhierarchical) organized forms of governance. where. I argue that perspectives (Domenech. I use this literature 2016). Dhakal and Chevalier the hydrosocial cycle. technical experts continue to cussion focus on how different ways of knowing urban dominate the realm of urban environmental gover. and Urban political ecologists draw on notions of capture stormwater. cal cycle in a “socio-natural process by which water water flows and subject formation (Linton and Budds and society make and remake each other over space 2014. March. framework. humans into and out of the spaces of global urbaniza- How then do we account for the variations in the ways tion (Swyngedouw 2006. more equitable forms of urban environmental embodying different social. Bringing a field 2015). as well as the hydrologi- to understand the relationship between urban storm. society. 333). to draw attention to how different modes of expertise bureaucratic. a hazard. components and conceal fundamental differences in which link together multiple city departments. metabolism to characterize the socionatural relations tions to facilitate integration and reduce “vertical that transform urban ecosystems through the exchange fragmentation” between levels of government and and circulation of resources. By characterizing expert attitudes the ways power and knowledges. on the other. I empirically focus on how technical sociomaterial focus to stormwater. and landscapes that com- tasked with managing stormwater. which draws on scholarship in urban polit- lic participation. in which rules and regulations shape thought and Similarly. Urban water metabolisms thus reflect a range of taking critical approaches to urban water governance social and technical systems. hand. and civic organizations The following section outlines the theoretical through interagency working groups. Newell and Cousins 2015). and climatic regimes. an object of social understandings of stormwater governance in Chicago and political action. the hydrological processes. and time” (Linton and Budds 2014. capital. and bureaucratic governance. took a biopolitical practices that seek to control the flow of stormwater. institutions interact to influence environmental technological. subjectivities. These efforts entail changes to physical. pub. allows for an investigation into and Los Angeles. actions in and between institutions.

lations. Government interven- methodological approaches. which argue that the dominant form of labor ments. terms of the type of social and political power relations ernance by engaging with poststructural and feminist that shape how one comes to interact with and under- political ecology to understand the situated knowledge stand the environment (Agrawal 2005). scientific statements. as well as a (545). (Foucault 1980. I use these studies as a departure point to explore Managing stormwater in cities like Chicago and Los how urban metabolisms structure subjectivity and to Angeles is an enormous task that fosters many . architectural forms. tions structure different forms of knowing and regulat- Lawhon. many gaps remain in the ways in uniform. and the modernization tivity unevenly formulate out of the institutional and of water systems and hydraulic control (Kaika 2005. with addressing problems related to the material flow Although these studies take diverse analytical and and circulation of stormwater. The apparatus itself is orizations of immaterial labor and biopolitical produc. Anand’s (2011) theoretical develop. Instead. ically and across institutions and organizations—in forming dimensions within urban environmental gov. a relationship or emotional response” (Hardt ities of stormwater experts. albeit very complex.4 Cousins development. what effect on hydrosocial relations. As Arboleda (2015) noted. analyses and reflections. Such are the ele- by engaging with Hardt and Negri’s (2001. are not Nonetheless. 2009) the. specific. Angeles tivity at the heart of environmental politics. This investigation into and Negri 2004. Arboleda addressed this shortcoming short. however—both geograph- Other scholars address the perceived lack of subject. produces new forms of community and social subjects. 194) under the current political economic paradigm is immaterial—meaning that labor produces “immaterial My goal is to understand how the elements of the dispo- products. example. I suggest that the condi- become coproduced through the categorization of the tions influencing the emergence of a particular subjec- environment (Bouleau 2014). the network that can be established between these ele- tion. ments of the apparatus [dispositif]. and Silver 2014). communi. laws. Many variations exist. Kooy and Bakker ing the environment and how different modes of (2008). calcu- by large-scale mining projects to show how collabora. drawing on Foucault’s notion of a which scholars approach the relationship between dispositif. such as knowledge. sitif relate to one another and structure the subjectiv- cation. and tactics that allow the exercise of this very tive engagement from below. 108). urban spaces. Ernstson. information. These systems. power” (Foucault 2007. administrative measures. drew on Foucaultian theories of expertise differentially attempt to assert control over governmentality to explore the interrelated formations how hydrosocial relations should occur. Swyngedouw 2015). natural processes. rather than top-down. of subjectivities. Other work has examined the water–energy domain of subject formation fostered through differen- nexus (Delgado-Ramos 2014. the tially situated practices that unevenly bring humans ways in which hydrological science and social order into relation with resources. regulatory mandates that task water resource managers Banister and Widdifield 2014. one needs to interpret the politics form of belonging to the city enabled by social and of urban metabolism as conditioned by the material material claims made to the city’s water infrastructure” flow of resources into and out of cities. Banister 2014). My analysis practices and forms of urban metabolic interaction teases apart the particular ways in which these varia- that structure urbanization processes (Grove 2009. institutions. however. for the power dynamics shaping urban hydrosocial metab. urban metabolisms can also translate into the produc. procedures. This framework is then applied governmentality encompasses the “ensemble formed by to a case centered on struggles over water threatened institutions. 108). McDonnell 2014). the said as much as the unsaid. Loftus (2012) Stormwater Challenges in Chicago and Los also accomplished this by centering everyday subjec. and philanthropic propositions—in developed” (36). they succeed in revealing tions to resolve water quality and quantity issues. “The extent to which these A thoroughly heterogeneous set consisting of discourses. regulatory decisions. they are metabolic urbanization and subject formation. and urban infrastructure that influence water access in Jakarta. I argue that to ment of “pressure” also works as a useful analytic to understand how stormwater circulates through the understand the formations of hydraulic citizenship: “a hydrosocial cycle. moral. phil- tion of urban subjectivities has not yet been fully osophical. impose management systems that organize olisms and highlight the coproduction of human and the flow of stormwater by restructuring social and nonhuman networks (Latour 2005. for example.

the effectiveness of decentral- late nineteenth century for most U. different forms of knowledge are debated and become In contrast. among other entities. maintenance. 2017). water quality and quantity in Los Angeles. and governance. In Chicago. Between neers. Although the expert logic is based on requirements. cities and was ized and distributed systems like GI and LID. it consequently depoliti- tasked with construction occurring in floodways and cizes the power-laden social relationships under which waterways and providing floodplain management. stormwater management incentivize stormwater capture projects. Strate- posed that running water purified itself—this was used gies in both cities include market-based approaches like to justify the deposition of sewage into nearby water. that emerge in relation to addressing problems of ment and climate and precipitation patterns. The construction of combined sewers also remain in knowledge around actual costs and bene- became the predominant sewerage system through the fits to manage stormwater. With separate storm sewer system (MS4). both cities. trash. both cities face similar challenges in ance system that combined wastewater and stormwater meeting their water quality targets established in NPDES to direct the flows of water away from people and permits and in establishing financial mechanisms to fund urban development toward treatment plants (Burian stormwater infrastructure projects. and the Metropolitan (LA County Department of Public Works 2015). The Illinois Department of Natural finding solutions that advance economic growth and Resources is also involved as the regulatory agency environmental conservation. The MS4 is a legacy of governmental- ized efforts to improve flood control and protect and Methods encourage urban development. and devolved to the county level. mitigation banking to citywide ordinances and rebates to ways (Tarr 1979). Hydrosocial Relations in Urban Water Governance 5 different types of governmental and infrastructural County. including the U. Army Corps tions of the Los Angeles River. In the 1850s. The LACDA consists of stormwater issues were identified and researched in more than 500 miles of open channels. from the national level to the neighborhood Angeles only contains untreated stormwater. Chicago was among the first cities in Despite important differences in infrastructural form the United States to construct a stormwater convey. between December 2013 and September 2015. GI and LID. the MS4 in Los ernance.800 miles of storm of Engineers (USACE). Los Angeles developed a municipal normalized among communities and individuals. regulatory structure reform. Both cities are recognized leaders in directed toward improving water quality and main- addressing stormwater challenges in the United States taining compliance with regulatory requirements. Research the Flood Control Acts of 1936 and 1938 would bring progressed through multiple phases of fieldwork them into partnership with the Army Corps of Engi. 2000). Although 1914 marked the establishment of the Los Angeles County This article analyzes subject formation around Flood Control District (LACFCD). 2. the Metro. U.S. Los Angeles Department of drains. eventually arriving in the proceed. with the LACFCD designated as the princi- interventions to control and manipulate it (Cousins pal permittee to coordinate and facilitate activities 2016. it is important to ask how different can include suspended metals. and finding space within the city. and numerous flood control and debris basins Water and Power (LADWP). EPA. The Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago California State Water Resources Control Board is in (MWRD). and forms of environmental practice influence different ways fertilizer. many forms of expertise existing at multiple scales of gov- bined sewers found in Chicago. These are all technical politan Water Reclamation District is in charge of approaches. key governmental and flood control plan known as the Los Angeles County nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that work on Drainage Area (LACDA). In Illinois. (Chen and Hobbs 2013). but their unique concerns This creates a complicated network of stakeholders stem from their particular legacies of urban develop. Pacific Ocean. which and community. the passage of different discourses of stormwater governance. Together they would develop a comprehensive December 2013 and May 2014. that partially look to value storm- developing a countywide stormwater management water as a resource through the utilization of GI and new program for Cook County and maintaining compli. The aim was to iden- charge of issuing the NPDES permits for Los Angeles tify the range of distinct actors enrolled in debates over . forms of participatory and market-based governance ance with the federal and state NPDES Phase II (Cousins 2016). pesticides. Unlike the com.S. This water discharges to the Los Angeles of understanding how stormwater governance should and San Gabriel Rivers. including por.S. however. based on scientific understandings of the time that pro. Many uncertainties et al.

and opportunities. emerged from the the sorting exercise allows participants to structure factor analysis and interviews (statistics summarized and express their own worldview in relation to a set of in Table 1). structure how environmental problems and solutions The next phase asked the interviewees. goals. hydro-pragmatist (Table 2). Likert-scale surveys). and (4) to reveal and contextualize the multiple and conflict. “by allowing the par- NGOs. distinct viewpoint or domain of subjectivity. Q proves itself a rigorous and porous mix of and workshops on stormwater management in each qualitative and quantitative method” (646). formal government plans. Dan- including the range of formal city. Webler.g. manipulation of the categories of a quantitative form tatives from these organizations and attended meetings of analysis. I define them as (1) hydro-reformist.6 Cousins urban water governance and management in each city. Proops 1999). regional.218 0. Factor analysis works by creating new variables. (2) stimuli (e. In this article.186 0. population (Brown 1980.32 revealing the distribution of viewpoints across a .156 0. forty respondents participated. Each group is a ing perspectives they might hold about a topic. regional (n D 3).94 4. The final output of the analysis produces an ideal- vation. This allows participants hydro-managerialist. Results of the analysis indicate that involved in shaping urban water governance. ings of integrated water resource management and tor analysis to generate a set of “super factors” that the utilization of science and technology to drive capture the similarities and differences within and between the subjectivities. includes a set of statistically significant distinguishing mine the different types of claims being made about statements that represent the key points of difference how stormwater governance should proceed. city. Between May 2014 and June 2015. tem” to maintain consistent and holistic factor inter- ment strategies. such as “descriptive archetype” of a perspective on how hydro- stormwater. were then analyzed to deter. scientific.966 Standard error of factor scores 0. Collectively. I applied a second-order fac.. some of which were slightly hydrosocial relations to understand the discourses that paraphrased.976 0. I conducted ticipation of the researched in the construction and semistructured interviews with key actors and represen. ielson.g. challenges.. Robbins 2006. along with archival work examining academic ized sort for each factor or group. policy documents.952 0. In contrast to traditional sorting exer- cises that use a preset scale (e. From these between the other factors or perspectives (Barry and sources. Group tors. The results of the interviews and participant obser. as well as nongovernment the knowledge groups capture the range of variability officials (n D 18) and academics (n D 2) actively in response.87 5. of those in Table 1.67 4. and municipal (n D 10) approaches (Davies and Hodge 2012). I assembled a concourse of 376 direct state.43 3. (3) hydro-rationalist. instead of % total variance 36. and federal government agencies and depart. This and NGO publications. that identify and group together the common and Factor characteristics 1 2 3 4 consistent orderings of statements among the respond- ents. This analytical approach into subjectivity. to new participants identified from a snowball sample. state arrangements of market. or knowledge groups. the statements).186 ments of subject formation around a topic. Composite reliability 0. of defining variables 10 5 7 7 quantitative techniques to reveal different arrange.966 0. county.88 3. or viewpoints. and application in human geography. As state. pretation (Watts and Stenner 2012). to sort the selected statements in a grid from C3 (most agree) to ¡3 (most disagree) during a follow-up survey Results: Structuring Hydrosocial Relations and interview.35 8. The interpretation and analysis of the ments and quotes that captured the range and diversity distinguishing statements relied on the “crib sheet sys- of perspectives and opinions on stormwater manage. social relations should be structured through different which included officials from federal (n D 4). community and environmental groups. agencies and departments. and regulatory (n D 3). Watts and Stenner 2012). Factor characteristics Chicago and Los Angeles (Watts and Stenner 2012). Robbins and Krueger (2000) noted in describing its ments.79 known as Q-methodology. Eigenvalue 6. subject formation converges around shared fram- To analyze the results. which represents a articles. I The concourse was then narrowed down to forty repre. or fac. and Tuler 2009. Four factors. In total. use Q-methodology to reveal different expressions of sentative statements. couples qualitative and No. in addition are defined and articulated.

Stormwater fees are not feasible. ¡1 1 1 1 will encourage investment in green infrastructure and help deliver stormwater mitigation at the lowest possible cost. 3. Land-use change presents the most difficult challenge to stormwater management. Stormwater engineers see only engineering 1 ¡2 0 0 solutions and green infrastructure is not part of that. is a fault of political leaders. 9. Hydrosocial Relations in Urban Water Governance 7 Table 2. Implementation is a barrier in large part due to NIMBY type of concerns. 20. space is a significant limitation. water supply. We need market-based approaches and fewer government interventions and ¡2 0 ¡2 ¡1 regulations to finance stormwater management. Municipalities need fees and cost sharing plans. Science and data should direct decisions on stormwater and infrastructure. like climate change. 5. 4. it offers more flexible ¡1 0 0 0 opportunities. We 3 2 2 2 need data-driven and fact-based approaches drawing on the best available science and engineering. Wastewater. I think there is a cultural problem. ¡1 ¡1 ¡1 0 7. Stormwater management needs economic instruments to put a value on 0 1 2 2 stormwater and make it a resource rather than a hazard. economic. Getting people to apply to incentive programs is problematic because people do 0 ¡3 0 ¡1 not care about stormwater management and lack knowledge of water issues. 10. 12. If you just think of it as one water then you can manage it much more efficiently. We do not need more integrated approaches. The trouble within the city is that we are so congested and built up we do not have ¡1 2 1 ¡1 the space for many types of green infrastructure. We lack the data needed for the adoption of green infrastructure and to accurately 0 2 ¡2 ¡1 quantify its performance. water quality and all of that stuff is just 2 ¡1 1 0 water. Failure to address stormwater. Corporations and private interests should have the chance to develop their own ¡3 0 ¡2 ¡1 targets for stormwater abatement. We need stormwater fees. A mitigation bank for stormwater will help foster public–private partnerships to 0 1 2 0 address stormwater by allowing developers to meet LID requirements by paying into that bank. with appropriate regulatory safeguards. there are too many concerns about 1 ¡1 0 0 unregulated off-site mitigation. 14. nor are they enough for successful ¡1 ¡1 ¡3 ¡2 implementation in the long term. 2 1 3 1 22. Stormwater needs to be held and used on-site. 19. 21. or water more generally. 23. We need stricter laws and regulations to address stormwater because change is not 1 0 3 1 going to happen voluntarily. 8. An integrated management approach is critical. 6. integrated water resource planning is not the answer. ¡2 1 ¡2 ¡2 2. Development of a tradable credit system. 24. Stormwater mitigation should be able to occur off-site. Off-site approaches lead to better outcomes than on-site. People ¡1 1 0 0 do not want to be liable. Climate uncertainty is the most difficult challenge for proactive adaptation ¡1 0 ¡3 1 planning for stormwater management. One of our biggest barriers is increased regulation. 13. 11. Stormwater. 15. 1 ¡2 ¡1 ¡1 or financial principles. 16. Factor array of Chicago and Los Angeles perspectives of stormwater governance Group Statement 1 2 3 4 1. There needs to be a shift toward 3 3 2 3 more integrated approaches across all of the institutions and sectors concerned with the management of water. 17. 0 ¡1 0 1 they are the ones who need to be educated and incentivized to innovate. We need better enforcement of ¡2 ¡2 0 ¡3 existing regulations and improvement of local codes and ordinances. (Continued on next page) . 18. flood water. should not be guided by market. Stormwater fees are problematic.

We need a grassroots. With many community groups and NGOs there are issues with them maintaining 0 1 1 0 the infrastructure or with them focusing too narrowly on certain issues. 39. Note: The statements are direct. Only looking at new developments hurts us. 34. 27. and ecological change. NGO D nongovernmental organization. or funds for other services. decision-making. LID offers economic benefits. Homeowners need to be educated and they need to educate each other about the 1 0 1 1 benefits of improved stormwater management. 30. 40. 37. I think there is enough NGO capacity within the city to have a better coordinated 0 0 1 0 and more strategic approach to green infrastructure. LID D low-impact development. community- driven approach to create better outcomes. recreation dollar. Big systems and dams or reservoirs are important for floods and stormwater 2 2 2 0 mitigation. Rather than focusing on new development. Distributed projects are not effective. Contrasting ings exists along a spectrum of those involved in perspectives center on the effectiveness of different stormwater governance. As we build green infrastructure we are going to change the nature of ¡2 ¡1 ¡2 ¡1 neighborhoods. the role of regulation in either enabling or fundamental differences in the ways in which hydroso. NIMBY D not in my backyard.8 Cousins Table 2. they do not scale up across the city or to ¡2 ¡1 ¡1 ¡2 other sites and will never meet the level of stormwater abatement and/or capture needed. 36.05). Factor array of Chicago and Los Angeles perspectives of stormwater governance (Continued) Group Statement 1 2 3 4 25. or are biased. 38. on economic litical practices that reduce complexity and conceal incentives. types of infrastructural interventions. quotes drawn from participant interviews and archival sources written by participants or their affiliated organizations. such as deferring or even replacing costly large gray 2 0 1 2 stormwater infrastructure projects. or slightly modified. constraining stormwater governance. 29. They need to be the targets of interventions because community-driven approaches tend to be more effective than data-driven approaches. 31. For every dollar we spend on a water quality project that is one less emergency ¡3 ¡2 ¡1 ¡2 service dollar. I am really opposed to creating new institutions or rules to manage stormwater. LID is more cost-effective than gray infrastructure. 32. of social. Larger centralized projects for handling and capturing stormwater are typically ¡1 3 0 ¡3 more cost-efficient than trying to treat it at thousands of small sources. and how new cial relations are structured through ongoing processes institutions and rules should be crafted. we need to focus on the existing 2 1 ¡1 1 development and encourage retrofitting. 0 2 0 ¡2 There are too many agencies and there is too much diversity already. political. but after the rain. Centralized stormwater projects make more financial sense than distributed and decentralized stormwater projects. how you handle that water is important for water quality and/or supply. We are going to push working-class people out as we build more economic development around green space. 0 0 ¡1 ¡1 are not factual. It is hard to justify money for stormwater management. I think there definitely will be a need for new institutions and rules to manage 0 ¡3 ¡1 3 stormwater. Centralized urban water systems are maladapted to address climate change impacts 1 ¡1 ¡1 2 and environmental stressors. 28. 35. Resilience of urban water systems will be improved by moving away from the 1 ¡2 1 2 centralized model and using more distributed solutions like green infrastructure. they formulate through apo. We need to maintain the narrative of engagement by redefining city services and 1 0 0 1 bringing the expertise to the neighborhoods. Although this cohesive set of fram. Values shown in bold are distinguishing statements (significant at p < 0. 33. . Local residents’ contributions to decision-making usually show a lack of expertise. 26.

utilization of regulatory mechanisms also reveals divi- vate interests in stormwater governance. The hydro-reform. Natural The perspective is unique. This group reflects a strong com. in its skepticism of Resources Defense Council. Cantor 2016) and might not matter of better science. we fying public funding for stormwater management. support enforcement to drive reform. it accomplish desired outcomes. A common concern. but the market-oriented approaches and the involvement of pri. These tory reform. works that are materialized through a system The resulting picture of stormwater is that it is traditionally designed to bifurcate human–nature rela- much more than simply a matter of conveyance but a tionships (Jepson 2012. the progressive discourse of the hydro. April Current regulations continue to allow pollution at levels 2015). Here. authority in stormwater governance. water governance. problems across the urban landscape. Hydrosocial Relations in Urban Water Governance 9 Hydro-Reformist and opportunities for regulated parties to escape responsi- bility. oriented approaches. Inc. differences highlight the difficulties of governing com- reformist is tempered through technical forms of engage. government interventions Although it is perceived that this lack of standards and regulations need to respond to societal needs. and and quantifiable aspects of water supply and water involving the market or private actors is less likely to quality benefits impedes the implementation of GI. recreation dollar. one from Chicago). The current approaches are full of loopholes expertise and pervasive apathy demonstrated by the . This is a common discourse for hydro-reformists. however. plex social–ecological processes through legal frame- ment with administrative bodies. “For every dollar we spend fast enough or at a large enough scale for LID and GI on a water quality project. et al. This group also sions between perspectives centered on water quality supports more regulations and more stringent code and quantity. but approaches and looks to structure alternative forms of hydro-managerialists perceive many regulatory struc- social–ecological relationships in the city through regula. A common sentiment among the have to improve but the regulations have to get better group was that the statement showed “a lack of appre- as well. it stems from “the lack of regulations. and two perceive regulations as the primary driver fostering municipal water managers (Chicago). tures as inhibiting their water supply mission. hydro-reformists resides in their skepticism of market- Without data or models sophisticated enough to iden. that’s one less emergency to have a significant impact without focusing on the service dollar. is The preference for increased regulations among the lack of data to foster science-driven approaches. implementing targets for stormwater abatement. They also strongly dis- is also understood that redevelopment will not occur agree with the statement. or the volumes of water captured. involving pri- GI and attaining water quality and supply benefits vate actors would allow them to evade accountability. Under this perspective. five water resource experts from NGOs (four from Los Angeles. transitions in the ways in which cities relate to water. vate] entities have taken. Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. This is best artic- mitment toward integrated strategies that are “data. environment in socially and environmentally just ways. 2013). as a key tool to direct liability and garner state-backed ronmental governance. services. not looser as one respondent noted. This group does not want private tify the type of projects needed. not only does the science agement” (#35. stricter requirements. and adequately account for the range of geographically dis- better enforcement. This group acknowledges the difficulty of justi- that endanger the environment and human health. or funds for other existing environment.. One respondent noted: ciation for the value of water” (Respondent 38. To develop stringent regulatory oversight. for example. hydro- ented approaches and a progressive vision that looks to reformists perceive legal and bureaucratic mechanisms reform current regulations and codes to alter urban envi. might remain elusive for the hydro-reformist. (Respondent 33. but need stricter requirements and enforcement. ulated through litigation efforts undertaken by NGO driven” and directed toward transforming the existing groups to stop illegal discharges of stormwater (e. It’s hard to justify money for stormwater man- For the hydro-reformist. a path unfortunately too many cities or other [pri- Ten respondents comprise the hydro-reformist group.g. however. Hydro-reformists. science tributed social practices contributing to stormwater needs to guide the formulation of improved storm.. who one regional water manager (Los Angeles). April 2015) including two academics. ¡3). Although this perspective more regulations to improve or clarify different roles recognizes the apolitical character of market-oriented in stormwater governance aimed at water quality. where they need to interests to have an opportunity to develop their own go. ist is defined by an articulated skepticism of market-ori. For the hydro-reformist.

a major burden on taxpayers without much benefit” ture Plan (Geosyntec 2014). (Respondent 12. however. the claimed objectivity of eco- ment in the U. a sharply nomic calculations conceals the very political nature alienating. improved by moving away from the centralized model ies—whether or not a particular actor works within a and using more distributed solutions like green infra- formal administrative body. structure” (#32. This creates a ble for maintenance. More Worster’s (1985) framing of water resource develop. As another flood control and water supply. West and con. ¡2) is rooted in the data. the hydro- imported water supply sources. in this view. nificant limitation. the function of GI.10 Cousins general public and elected officials [toward volume captured and distributed stormwater capture stormwater]” (Respondent 18. which calculate central. This creates Department of Water and Power’s Stormwater Cap. This is further manifested in the hydro-managerialist’s dent addresses stormwater issues at the federal level. “Better enforcement of existing volume of stormwater captured and increasing the rules and development of new policy is a better option beneficial use of stormwater as a supply. The name derives from which people come into relation with water. In a centralized facility. however. that stormwater engineers do not see GI as part of the litical view of stormwater as an unharnessed resource solution to the stormwater problem. “Engineers greatly see the social benefits of maximize economic gain and resource capture. [for managing stormwater as a resource]” (Respondent managerialist agrees that integrated approaches are 22. “Distributed capture is cial relations through legal and scientific discourses problematic in that no one ever wants to be responsi- rather than market-based approaches. critically. which is rooted in technical feasi- nature” (5).S. the [costs powerful. April 2015). discourse that seeks to of] operation and maintenance is also centralized” provide a political–ecological alternative to corporate (Respondent 11. The final respon. April 2015). April 2015). open markets. The hydro-managerial perspective consists of five rather than drawing attention to the diffuse ways in officials from Los Angeles. This vision is best respondent noted. which shows that centralized approaches are cost effective. This is also reflected in the sentiment problems and solutions to them. making. preference for centralized solutions. Four respondents have a background bility. As one participant that requires modification to management regimes to answered. intensely managerial relationship with of this perspective. The hydro. April 2015). The per- Hydro-Managerial spective centers on utilizing economic calculations capable of forging stormwater into a supply source. particularly of public funds. April 2015). water resource management in the U. As oping approaches that offer the lowest cost per unit one official noted. economic and market principles should be . The respondent went and economic elites but falls back on apolitical modes on to explain that the disagreement over the state- of governance that commensurate their perspectives ment that “resilience of urban water systems will be with more powerful technical and administrative bod. which can hold up to stored. one municipal official noted. Although these respondents value ric solutions that translate stormwater into market cal. despite disagreeing What distinguishes the hydro-managerialist is an apo. Although the valuation of stormwater might neces- cerns over the increasing uncertainty and instability of sitate the formation of new institutions.S. West as “dependent on. This reflects part of an inherited paradigm of a business case scenario. and resource capture. managerialist opposes the creation of new institutions Stormwater problems. Power green infrastructure. As the hydro-reformist vision looks to structure hydroso. The aim of this perspective is to critical but views large centralized facilities as more develop policy that creates an efficient market and cost-efficient than distributed solutions when consid. their role as public officials compels culations of how many acre-feet are captured and them to prefer centralized solutions. measureable and tan- neering and technological control over large volumes gible benefits are much easier to argue for” (Respondent of water but also their ability to define environmental 12. As a matter of prefer- ized projects as offering the lowest cost per unit ence. Overall. and sees increased regulation as a major barrier. allows economic and financial principles to guide inte- ering the amount of water captured and infiltrated for grated forms of stormwater governance. center on devel. working for municipal water utilities. “I disagree with the idea that storm- articulated in the cost–benefit analyses in Los Angeles water should not be guided economically. remaining in excess of the cost of imported water. but contradictory. when it comes to decision- for this group derives from their ability to exert engi. Their emphasis on among this group that space for implementing GI is a sig- quantity leads respondents toward preferring volumet.

in short. it. incentives and flexibility to select tailored solutions for gerialists is that if stormwater is economically valued meeting performance standards based on site-specific as a resource. Overall. but only in the securing adequate volumes of water supply. From a water quality perspec- viduals. As one dent noted. stormwater needs integration “at all levels with all stakeholders. includ. in particular position is bolstered through their engineering exper.” one respon. nisms to rationalize governance interventions. and. April 2015) The hydro-rationalist describes seven individuals. become the means assessments of water and technology. Similarities exist with other groups. household. more government interventions and market mecha- ing commercial. but it is perceived at a longer timescale. stormwater performance standards. Rather. I define the hydro-rationalist based on a shared their distinguishing stance toward mitigation banking emphasis on expert problem solving that seeks to as a means to foster public–private partnerships to establish better linkages among science. land owners. This spective views market-based approaches. partnerships and NGOs. are typically not viewed as a tangible way of as it potentially may become a problem. however. economic. The real challenge is to figure out what hydro-managerialism looks to structure hydro-social to do over the next ten to twenty years. Hydro-Rationalist (Respondent 27. They disagree that incentive pro. more people will become interested in conditions will be most effective and most cost-effective its management. approaches in achieving water quality and quantity zation of legal. however. Distributed projects. very long term. Here the per- sions on water and infrastructure governance. and local respondent noted. (Respondent 8. This is articulated through efforts to finance stormwater. in that stormwater Two are water resource engineers in Los Angeles. because “the federal. and market-based goals. it is not rooted in an opposition to develop mitigation banking schemes in both cities but . As one people about water resource issues at the respondent noted: neighborhood and household scales and influence their relationship with water. and NGOs. is but instead see the problem as creating incentive pro- their strong disagreement with the statement that cli- grams that effectively encourage residents to partici- mate uncertainty is the most difficult challenge for pate. Market-based approaches have economic principles. and water through market and tive.” Beyond price. address stormwater by allowing developers to meet and the market to foster social change and direct deci. A shared sentiment among the group is that proactive adaptation planning for stormwater manage- people respond to incentive programs. along with economic Moreover. stormwater needs regulations otherwise chances are that it doesn’t happen. as long as ment. a common attitude among hydro-mana. and the ends of this process by providing credibility This perspective looks to structure the technical and by legitimizing the effectiveness of market-based aspects of hydrosocial relations through the harmoni. and one is a state official in Califor. two are representatives for NGOs tives by seeing a broadened role for public–private based in Chicago. another is a water resource engi. the perspective is rooted in a approaches. LID requirements by paying into a bank. for meeting stormwater goals. April grams are problematic because people do not care 2015) about stormwater or lack knowledge of water issues A distinguishing perspective of this group. These respondents understand that climate the “price is right. This is articulated best in nia. as a mechanism to integrate actors tise and training that reduces complex social–ecologi. make sure that it will work. distributed change is going to present many challenges in the projects and GI are seen as a mechanism to engage future. governments cannot do this alone” (Respondent 22. cal problems to objective and scientifically based Science and engineering. across sectors and scales of environmental governance. relations through apolitical means that connect indi. one needs mechanisms to attribute an economic value to is a federal official. In other words. state. Climate uncertainty is not important to me at this time however. A combination of environmental requirements and April 2015). mitigation banking. more chance of success for stormwater management for the purpose of using stormwater as a water resource. Hydrosocial Relations in Urban Water Governance 11 utilized to create incentive programs that encourage market-based approaches. Although respondents disagree with the vision where science and engineering are needed to statement that we need market-based approaches and rationalize nature in a manner that renders it visible fewer government interventions and regulation to to the market. however. but the hydro-rationalist differs from other perspec- neer in Chicago. technology.

stressors. and a that centralized urban water systems are maladapted to water resource engineer from Los Angeles. they still see other gaps tive. (Respondent 10. This Although an economic and scientific rationality is is the exact inverse of the hydro-managerial perspec- important for this perspective. “I disagreed with the state- having quality data. Further- system designed to solve the problem. it’s a good idea. June 2015). this view reflects “democratic pragma. They do not see the develop. a director of a Los Angeles–based NGO. ment that there is too much diversity and not enough room for new stormwater institutions. And making sure technology works. 16. ter stormwater management. there needs what is not working are our planning and decision-mak. 2013. embraces dis- remaining respondents include a state official from Illi. more generally.12 Cousins is reflective of similar types of efforts across North The hydro-pragmatist strongly supports the devel- America and other parts of the world (Robertson opment of new institutions and rules to manage storm- 2004. Valderrama et al. their requirements. because to man- The technology is working. should be guided mate change is perceived as an important dimension by proper scientific and economic calculations. So we mission or maybe a creation of mechanisms for storm- end up with something that looks like GI but actually water agencies to collaborate and cooperate with isn’t infrastructure because it’s not part of a network or water agencies” (Respondent 20. As one respondent noted gest that this disagreement is not entirely due to after conducting the sort. a different respondent noted. but one of how to strategically utilize municipalities fully integrate green infrastructure into the resources at hand and connect GI into a broader sys. Drawing on address climate change impacts and environmental Dryzek (1997). As one respondent noted. April 2015). As one respondent noted. The hydro-rationalist might disagree that there ing sustainability transitions and the diversity of is a lack of data for the adoption of GI and to accu. opinions becomes an asset rather than a barrier to bet- rately quantify its benefits. cli- to GI. Huber water and strongly disagrees with the perspective that 2016). “There needs to be Hydro-Pragmatist an integrated approach to stormwater management. to be some changes in management sources” (Respon- ing processes on where is the optimal location for that dent 16. new institutions and rules are key for foster- to fill. April 2015). With climate change becoming a big reason in the This position is based on the understanding that shift of stormwater management. they see (Respondent 37. As one respondent economic system” (99–100). more. “I think there definitely will be a need for new in GI. A permeable parking lot is working. however. there needs to be dif- new rules and institutions will be needed to improve ferent perspectives in decision-making” (Respondent urban resilience by fostering integration and distrib. It’s an aesthetic preference. The utions. Hydro-pragmatists do not perceive central- tism” in that they believe in “interactive problem solv. integrated. efficiency of resource use either. Three of the respondents embraced as a way to find novel approaches to storm- work for major environmental NGOs based in the water management and foster more sustainable and United States. but postsort interviews sug. tem of water conveyance. This perspective. But specific technological investments. It’s not changing the way a ment of new institutions as a way to improve the city makes its investments or manages their stormwater. green approaches due to their the basic institutional structure of the current political inability to provide co-benefits. Lave 2012. Like if I only had $500. noted: . Rather. Among those will be some per- biggest bang for my buck? That’s not happening. The final decisions. Here. As another respondent also thing. Another respondent is a director of an cost-efficient approaches through more distributed sol- NGO working solely within the Chicago region. influencing integrated approaches to stormwater gov- ernance. Here a plurality of perspectives is uted stormwater capture. April 2015) The MS4 permit is really the Big Kahuna [in driving The problem is not a lack of data or how well a piece of changes in stormwater management]. because otherwise.000 and I want to invest it noted. April 2015) enough governmental and nongovernmental capacity within the city to have a better coordinated approach Unlike some of the other perspectives. tributed GI projects as necessary due to a perception nois. however. ized facilities as more cost-effective and efficient than ing in a world full of uncertainty but situated within distributed. large centralized facilities are more cost-efficient. how do I know I’m investing it where I’ll get the institutions and rules. but age stormwater sustainably and efficiently.

only masks the real differences between expert viewpoints and removes stormwater Taking an integrated watershed perspective in attempt- ing to address stormwater management is paramount. mar- management strategies do not consider impacts outside ket and economic incentives. “We also need to take advantage cerns about how the implementation of GI might pro- of the vast amount of data available and new technol- ceed across cities and the ways in which apolitical ogies that can be utilized to manager stormwater and frames conceal the distributive politics of GI and use it as a resource” (Respondent 1. The significance of the believe now is the time to reenvision urban water sys. actors strongly agree that inte. temological” strategies that continue to serve powerful nance mechanisms to structure their own vision of and elite interests. and when less 18. ronmental governance (Landstr€om et al. however. in this view. The hydro-managerialist. In how hydrosocial relations should proceed. Lane tions and sectors concerned with the management et al. and Newell 2014). rather than across groups. April 2015) tion of knowledge. are a product of too approaches. as making and regulations should rely on the best avail- well as their proven success (and revealed challenges). Byrne. other words. This is fur- and not scientific advances drawing on the latest ther revealed in a shared disagreement with the developments in green infrastructural design. often the right hand institutions and rules. Without a more coordinated approach across all sec- bling in many cities. Climate uncertainty revolves around green space. As one actor noted. 1005) noted. looking to engage in more experimental forms of envi- grated approaches that connect all of the institu. With increasing knowledge and awareness of these methods and the efforts of organiza. from its social and political context and contestation. April 2015) of the land was covered with impervious surfaces. approaches. with a . 2011. such as GI. and the role of new their mandates. albeit under a greener guise. (Respondent rain events were less frequent and intense. but that urban greening can have unintended consequen- proper planning can only move forward if the available ces such as gentrification and displacement (Dooling data are used to their full potential. it raises con- from Chicago noted. Hydro- statement that GI has the ability to change the nature pragmatists tended to be the most vocal about the role of neighborhoods and push working-class people out of of GI in mitigating the impacts of climate change and their neighborhoods as more economic development fostering more sustainable cities. point might seem insignificant. urban development. lies in the production and utiliza- tems. the concern becomes one of whose knowl- much emphasis on traditional engineering approaches edge counts and for what type of outcomes. disagree over the forms of water within a jurisdiction. they con. and this is forcing people to reevalu. the preference for science and data- verge and diverge on a number of important points. (Respondent 1. than a reframing of “grey epis- Although they all look to assemble different gover. 2011. The outdated infrastructure of centralized systems is crum. tors of water management. April 2015). On the surface. The need to repair this infrastructure or regulatory requirements. Braun 2015). of water are critical in meeting stormwater regula. As Finewood (2016. this green infrastructure. decision- tions and progressive leaders to encourage their use. Wolch. With a preference for science- driven approaches over community-driven Stormwater problems. How do different and competing frames of hydro. driven approaches might only work to reinforce domi- Results indicate a number of shared perspectives nant and powerful planning paradigms. Hydrosocial Relations in Urban Water Governance 13 Centralized projects may have worked in the past when does not know what the left hand is doing. With evidence suggesting is certainly considered a challenge for planning. Convergence on integration and science-driven tions. This is particularly important as actors tend to converge around the idea that distrib- Convergence and Divergence in uted and decentralized projects reflective of GI can Structuring Hydrosocial Relations scale up across cities and meet federal and state storm- water regulations. find alternate ways to deal with stormwater has opened The second major unifying point centers on utiliz- the opportunity for the use of distributed solutions like ing science-based approaches. however. this might be less of a convergence around alternative social relations interact with one another? approaches. I able science and engineering. As one respondent 2009. alignment. In other words. First. Within the existing agencies tasked to manage different Actors across groups. for example. too often agency role of centralized and distributed infrastructure. actors do not see appropri- ate the logic behind these systems and their ate change happening or successfully reaching effectiveness. In theory.

or liability. For both cities. however. alternative their subject positions are also based on contingent and visions of hydrosocial relations might be subverted for idiosyncratic expressions of broader knowledge claims the sake of water supply reliability. In Chicago actors are utilizing stormwater as a resource ply costs and benefits per acre-foot of stormwater cap. everyday actions of those associated with each lar perspectives.14 Cousins focus on water supply and economic development. gration and collaboration through horizontal relation- This outlook favors more distributed and decentralized ships and hybrid governance arrangements that bring forms of volume control that reduce runoff and together state and nonstate actors (Sletto and Nygren . The motivations driving gerialists apply a form of volume control that derives this transition. and the implications this has for more sustainable forms water infrastructure. They disagree over the costs of centralized urban water systems as well as their role in addressing climate change impacts Stormwater and the Politics of Urban and environmental stressors. the hydro-pragmatist. with a water quality focus. I identified four visions of hydrosocial relations. Furthermore. maintain that engineers see the social value of GI. In contrast.g. tions about stormwater’s use. The hydro-managerialist sees a lack of stormwater needs to be governed as a resource rather data for the adoption of GI. In conclusion. Whereas hydro-managerialists of urban metabolic relationships. tives. that lead them to propose or resist different forms of The hydro-managerialist also conflicts with the hydrosocial relations (Brannstrom 2011). This also appears in their Metabolism diverging stances toward the statement that the resil- ience of urban water systems will be improved by mov. and this is to govern stormwater through market-oriented reflected in differences regarding limitations of urban approaches are about trying to respond to environmen- space. these disagreements play out governance that reduce hydrosocial relations to their with material consequences in the day-to-day politics various hydrological and technological components. from their work on estimating the range of water sup. like cities across the globe. spectives develop volume control measures as means Second. Although the with both the hydro-rationalist and hydro-reformist uptake of this discourse is not universally accepted. especially the hydro-rationalist. however. 2014. More fundamental. This discord. duct themselves in relation to the hydrosocial cycle. hydro-reformist over the role of institutions and their I want to stress four points about hydrosocial relations perceptions of the culture and engineering of storm. More fundamental. to mitigate flood risks and pollution. hazard. New ways not see this translated into practice. whereas Los ture. than a nuisance. Garcetti 2015). These divergences stem whereas others are divisive. perspective. ment over data. vary between municipalities. it First.. tralized and distributed infrastructure. In cities like Los Angeles. hydrosocial relations in Los Angeles and to ensure that a specified volume of stormwater runoff Chicago reflect regulatory structures that incent inte- is retained on site to meet water quality regulations. they fall back on technocratic forms of tions. is rooted in the different profitable enterprise stems from funding gaps created volumetric approaches applied by actors. but logical control over the flows of water. do not share this this way of seeking environmental governance through vision. Hydro-mana. they hold opposing views of cen. however. of urban water governance. Chicago and Los appears that actors within other knowledge groups do Angeles face considerable fiscal constraints. whereas the other perspec. Different forms of involvement in stormwater gover- for example. integrated but also different visions of urban hydrosocial rela. is how these differences play out in the the two domains of knowledge with the most dissimi. are however. approaches). Although subtle. the other per. I show that despite a shared from different ways of knowing the urban environment goal to link the social and hydrological (e. the hydro-managerialist is at odds tal issues through profitable ventures. which typically leads to large centralized Angeles is seeking to garner more water supply benefits approaches capable of capturing large volumes of in addition to flood and pollution control (Emanuel stormwater (Cousins 2016). First. In other words. is the disagree. it over the role of incentive programs to incite behavior does show how new methods and technologies of gov- that aligns with stormwater quality and conservation erning stormwater are the result of changing percep- goals. at the state and federal level. where water suppliers derive much of nance matter in shaping how environmental actors con- their power through their ability to exercise techno. distributed solutions like GI. and provide water quality benefits. ing away from the centralized model and using more Although it is clear that some perspectives align actors.

Part of the appeal of integrated plans and credible and objective decisions about resource man- approaches is that they can work as boundary objects agement. constructions within each knowledge group. It also questions the effectiveness of metabolisms has relied on the deployment of a rules that encourage participation. 2011. jurisdictional. and institu. to engage in a collaborative setting with. Ward 2013). How particular strat- leadership (Dhakal and Chevalier 2016). the conceptual frames used by water espoused by the actors in this study. With power egies play out to achieve desired aims. and related to participation. Instead. Although it is not surprising that nance is achieved produces fragmented and differ- the scientization of urban stormwater politics appears entiated subjectivities that at times enable actors to among technocratic decision-makers tasked to make direct decision-making toward their own goals and . even among those resource managers to manipulate the flows of storm- not typically considered technocrats. Robbins also devolve decision-making powers and shift the 2012). 2011). Blue formation around different forms of hydrosocial 2015). where sci. and redistribute knowledge and imacy of public participation and the participatory skills (Latour 1998. This is evident with respond. because it runs the risk of grated (Bakker 2014. relations depends on the ability of an actor to exer- jectivities of actors across all knowledge groups and cise power in the pursuit of a goal (Agrawal 2005). The governance. Although subject ques and reasoning (Habermas 1970. confronts the water reflect shifts in the metabolic relationship broader impact of the so-called paradigm shift in water between nature and human knowledges. and subjectivities. lishing a record of participation rather than fostering tional fragmentation. power is forms of hydrosocial relations and conceal difference rationalized through different forms of expertise. challenges. scientization of stormwater governance also highlights out necessarily having to compromise differences of the ways in which science can bound decision-making opinion or their structural position (Star and and define legitimate versus illegitimate forms of Griesemer 1989. In through consensus building (Cohen and Bakker 2013). institutions. capacity. politics. atic. the more participatory and collective experiments that bring science and society inclusive approach to decision-making remains together to coproduce new forms of knowledge. rooted in the geometries of power that influence cesses. A broad appeal to scientism permeates the sub. preferences. as Blue (2015) noted. the modes of hydrosocial relations that tion of urban environmental governance. in different domains of water to their technical and hydrological components. Although integrated approaches are perceived as a broad stakeholder involvement is driven toward estab- way to reduce bureaucratic. Rather than fostering open debate and discus- scale of analysis to the entire watershed. This is potentially problem- aspects of water management that need to be inte. and society should interrelate. These “disenfranchising legitimate dissent on the grounds challenges also lead to other questions about who that alternative perspectives are not perceived as suffi- should be involved in decision-making and in what ciently reasonable or rational” (71). it consequently reduces hydrosocial relations allowing different actors. process is fraught with disagreements about the specific Landstr€om et al. sations that explore the variable subjectivities and ents in both Chicago and Los Angeles. Lemos and Morehouse 2005. is remaining situated within formal government-led pro. assem- uneven. especially when series of knowledges directed toward achieving goals final decision-making is at the discretion of agency in water quality and quantity. materializes from their desires for more science-based the uneven ways in which environmental gover- rules and methods. Some actors question the credibility and legit. is the scientiza. the presence of ongoing water quality and quantity Third. which most sion among the competing values. ble new connections. however. With a shared framing approaches that appeal to more integrated or greener of technocratic governance to direct changes in the approaches might work to obscure more democratic way humans relate to and manage water. or per- actors view as the optimal scale to coordinate efforts spectives inherent among the different knowledge across bureaucratic and jurisdictional boundaries and groups. Integrated approaches knowledge (Robards et al. resource managers to transform urban stormwater Cohen 2012). Eden 1998. Hughes and Pincetl 2014). The persistence of technocratic viewpoints Finally. The work of water uted and participatory approach (Pahl-Wostl 2007. Hydrosocial Relations in Urban Water Governance 15 2016). one should remain critical of the ways in which socioenvironmental change. Cohen 2012. governance from a centralized approach to a distrib. align with dominant forms of environmental gover- ence frames the issues and problems are identified and nance will continue to set and define how water resolved through the application of scientific techni. the scientization of politics suppresses conver- reduce fragmentation.

The debut of ics 83:51–57. Ecological Economics 28 (3): 337–45. and the many frontier. cal Geography 46:36–52. The co-production of science and water- scapes: The case of the Seine and the Rh^one rivers. where the creativity within courses with Q methodology. neoliberalism. Agrawal. Are you Wittfogel or against him? Davies. 2003. Political subjectivity: Applications of Q- Funding methodology in political science. Bilal Butt. Maria tal governance discourses in Brazil’s northeastern soy Carmen Lemos.005 ———. Rescaling environmental governance: Watersheds as boundary objects at the intersection of References science. 2012. logical boundaries in Alberta. Ecological Econom- Banister. and J. Durrans. ecology of water supply infrastructure for Los Angeles. G. Brown. This research was supported by a Rackham Doc. “modern water” in early 20th century Mexico City: Delgado-Ramos. G.. Infrastructure and institutions: Stakeholder Bakker. present and future. A political–industrial talism in the water sector. toral Research Grant. J. ed. J. It is within these gaps of dominant forms of Barry. The Professional Geographer 63 (4): 531–49.. Environment and Planning A 44 (9): 2207–24. online publication. B. Global Gov- Heynen 2014). Journal of Political Ecology 22 (1): 98–114. ernance 12:141–59. the stability of preference structures. Cohen. S. McCarthy. CT: Yale University Press. G. the Trent R. J. J. ment and Resources 39 (1): 469–94. Bakker.pdf (last accessed 15 March 2017). the processes of metabolism lies and the potential Betsill. 2014.1016/j. Cousins. 2015. and the National Science Cantor. Environment and Anand. http://dx. Geoforum 58:38–50. Scott Campbell. Volume control: Stormwater and the Arboleda. 2012. level governance of global climate change. Pressure: The politechnics of water supply Planning D: Society and Space 32:128–46. R....geofo Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 33 (1): rum. Chen. The Geographical ies. handbook of political ecology. Widdifield.020 35–51. Framing climate change for public delibera- tion: What role for interpretive social sciences and Acknowledgments humanities? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 7200 (June): 1–18. 2011. R. doi: 10.09. 2014. Hodge. and K. 2014. Hobbs. cities. and I. J. In The Routledge ience Interdisciplinary Working Group at the Uni. Jounal of Urban Technology 7 ship in the History of Civil Engineering at The (3): 33–62.03. R. J. Journal of Histori. Advance online publication. Journal 169 (4): 328–41. Cultural Anthropology 26 (4): 542–64. legal geographies of water in California. D. From critique to experiment? Rethinking others who provided feedback through the Resil. A. B. A Q-method analysis of environmen- also like to thank Josh Newell. 2016. Rooftops to rivers II: Green expressed in this material are those of the author(s) strategies for controlling stormwater and combined sewer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the overflows.. 2013. A. and H. Geoforum 57:248–57. The biopolitical production of the city: politics of urban metabolism. tal perspectives in agriculture: Repeated Q analysis and rum 57:205–14. Canada. 2011. Urban wastewater management in the United States: Past. Braun. Pitt. Bulkeley. K. 2006. 2015. ———. 2015. M. J.nrdc. https://www. C. C. Huntington Library.2016.. A. N. 2015.doi. 2013. T. Environmentality: Technologies of govern. and S.1016/j. London and New York: Routledge. 1999. political ecology for the Anthropocene. Blue. S.. S. 2014. J.org/10. ing environmental governance and the politics of eco- versity Press. Cit- and water privatization in the South. 102–14. Archipelagos and networks: Urbanization perspectives of stormwater governance in Chicago. A. and conclusions or recommendations 72:49–57. Newell. Geoforum findings. Any opinions. M. J. 2017. and K. Burian. The eco-scalar fix: Rescal- ment and the making of subjects. storiversII-update. and J.org/sites/default/files/rooftop National Science Foundation. Cohen. Bridge.2017. versity of Michigan. Durham. Cousins. Water and the political ecol- The Xochimilco potable waterworks. Banister. 2016. . 2000. hydro-sociality. 1980. NC: Duke Uni. B. however. and J. Geofo. Dames Fellow. and S. 2005. I would Brannstrom. The business of water: Market environmen. Advance Urban political ecology in the age of immaterial labour. P. M. 1536377). reviewers for their constructive feedback. New Haven. Cities and the multi- for new sociospatial formations exists (Smith 1984. Shifting environmen- Geophilosophy. The public trust doctrine and critical Foundation (Grant No. Perreault. and the state. G. M.16 Cousins desires. and participation. J. 2014. Seeking sustainability dis- governance. time to contribute to this study and the anonymous France. in Mumbai. ogy of urban metabolism: The case of Mexico City. Nix. Geoforum. E. Proops. I would like to thank all of those who took their Bouleau. M. G. Annual Review of Environ.

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 2 (2): 85–96. Landstr€om. H.org/10. Antipode 46 (2): report. and infra- nal of Urban and Regional Research 33 (3): 621–39. Morehouse. A. S.. claiming water: Con. S. R. population: Lectures at the Lave. ing and mobilizing a relational-dialectical approach to Hardt. R. Chevalier. ning C: Government and Policy 32 (1): 20–38. 2015. uncer. 2005. Global Environmental Change 15 (1): 57–68. MA: water. 2009. spaces. https://doi. M. Odoni. The politics of the earth: Environmental dis. tech- pipe in Kathmandu and Melamchi Valleys. Saurı. Empire. and the non. economy. Odoni. Landstr€om. Bradley. S. territory. S. Toward a relational society. Minneapolis: University of Min- empire. Finewood.. H. L. 1998. 31. and J. large-scale water supply projects at both ends of the Karvonen. New York: Penguin. and K. Green infrastructure.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-460_3ea4. C. 2005. Hughes.1177/03091325 and Madrid (1850–2012). and J. Geoforum 57:170–80. 2001. 1998. ment/dcon/FactSheet7watershed. Multitude: War and democracy in the age of urban political ecology. Los Angeles: Geosyntec. Geo. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32 courses. watershed? http://www. of energy and water in Abu Dhabi’s hydrosocial cycle. 1977–1978. 2009. Progress in Human Geography 38 (4): 598–604. A. J. City of Chicago green stormwater infra. 2013. Resource geographies I: Valuing nature March. M. ronment. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). S. Inc. Stormwater capture master plan interim UPE through African urbanism. Bridging political ecology and STS: A field College de France. and S. Critical Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36 (1): approaches to urban water governance: From critique 15–36. Eden. 1997.” Environment and Planning A pdf (last accessed 15 March 2017). Press. 2008. Evaluating collaborative McDonnell. Foucault.org/ Lawhon. ment: Constituting subjectivities. Progress in Human Geogra. equity. N.. ed. Doing flood risk science water governance. M. Coproducing flood risk water Phase II Final Rule: Small MS4 stormwater pro. 43 (7): 1617–33. LA County. N. In Power/ ———. and S. Bradley. MA: MIT forum 47:22–31. Harvard University Press. Lemos. tion of science and policy in integrated climate assess- human. N. and transdisciplinary collabora. pLAn: Transforming Los Angeles: Envi. structures in colonial and contemporary Jakarta. M. K. and the sustainable city.. S. S. Geoforum 40 (2): 207–16. et al. Claiming space. Water theft and hydrosocial order in Tijuana. N. Taming. . H. B.gov/lacfcd/sedi phy 22 (3): 425–32. ogies. P. Commonwealth. Environ- tested legal geographies of water in south Texas. (2): 375–91. Antipode 48 (4): 1000–21. M. A.pdf (last tury. March. Advance flows: Water and the urbanization process of Barcelona online publication. 2016. Silver. Budds.. ———. Storm. New York: Pantheon. Press. 2015. M. Holifield.. What is a tainty and the environment. ———. 2015. actor-network-theory. Huber. Reassembling the social: An introduction to knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings. Geoforum 57:225–33. The confessions of the flesh. From the world of science to the world of tion. Technologies of govern- agenda exploring justice in the city. Urban political ecology I: The urban cen. Environmental issues: Knowledge..pdf (last accessed 28 Emanuel. 2011. accessed 15 March 2017). Pincetl. and D. Dooling. supremecourt. 2005. agement in Southern California. and A. European Urban and Regional 16670773 Studies 22 (4): 350–67. ments. 2014.gov/npdes/pubs/fact1-0. Heynen. New York: Oxford University Gordon. C. 1970. Natural University Press. Everyday environmentalism: Creating an ———. http://plan. Hydrosocial Relations in Urban Water Governance 17 Dhakal. J. differently: An experiment in radical scientific method. 2009. Whatmore. R. International Jour. 2004. Cambridge.. Rethinking the nature of urban environ. J. Circulations and transformations institutions in context: The case of regional water man. J. 2011. 2014. Nepal. E. 2007. 2013. Annals of the Association of Garcetti. Cambridge. Provin- (last accessed 15 March 2017). 2012. Latour. J. nature. nology. Environmen. March 2017). 2013. and R. S. K. Habermas. N.. Whatmore. Domenech. C. and L. 2014. H.lacounty. M. subjectivity. Ward. Lane. H. 2005. American Geographers 102 (2): 366–82. structure strategy. Grove. Dryzek. 2011. 2016. tal Management 57 (5): 1112–24.. Resources Defense Council. controlling and metabolizing (or not). MA: Harvard Los Angeles County Flood Control District v.. Department of Public Works. research? Science Magazine 280 (5361): 208–09. Disciplining de facto development: Jepson. Boston: Linton. nesota Press. Lane. and S. Loftus. and the city. 497–516. J. “participatory modelling. 194–228. Finewood. New York: Picador.. democracy.lamayor. Urban stormwater of the Association of American Geographers 102 (3): 614– governance: The need for a paradigm shift. and the urban political ecology of Pittsburgh’s Ward. New York: Oxford University Press. Ernstson. Negri. cializing urban political ecology: Towards a situated Geosyntec. M. Ecological gentrification: A research Kooy.dpw. Bakker.epa. analysis of the Rosgen Wars. Meehan. The hydrosocial cycle: Defin- Beacon. N. 2014. Contesting London and New York: Routledge. knowledge: Redistributing expertise in critical gram overview. 2014. 2012. M. 2014. Annals ment and Planning D: Society and Space 31 (2): 319–36. W. grey epistemol. R. Kaika. Progress in Human Geography. Environment and Plan. N. City of flows: Modernity. Security. 2014. and B. 2015. Chicago: City of Chicago. to justice. 2012. K. http://www. Politics of urban runoff: Nature. 2016. The co-produc- mental politics: Security. Cambridge. C. 1980. http://www.

C. Global Environmental EKO Asset Management Partners. A case study in urban technology design choice. Balti. Dephilip. 2007. and A. The sanitary city: Environmental services ecology and the politics of urban metabolism. Evolution. M.cousins@dartmouth. 2014. Metabolic urbanization: The making tural development. The boundaries of ———. aridity. C. 2009. Porse. J. Hanover. public health. 2006. R. Beyond bias? The prom. MA: Social and Environmental environmental governance. C.. Ecosys- gia Press. Geography and Environmental Studies Program at Dart- “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and pro. L. Liquid power: Contested hydro-modernities in urban metabolism: Towards a political-industrial ecol. 2011. The neoliberalization of ecosystem method to reveal social perspectives in environmental services: Wetland mitigation banking and problems in research. E.j. N. E-mail: fessionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. R. E. Cousins. MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Ward. and The Nature Change 21 (2): 522–29. and environmental justice: The CT: Yale University Press. R. Stormwater governance and future cities. and J. 1985. Kaiser. 2016. P. Greenfield. challenge of making cities “just green enough. Wachowicz. S. growth of the American West. Swyngedouw. and E. O. The separate vs.edu. L. Robbins. Water 5 (1): 29–52. 2000. A. Journal ment of water facing climate and global change. 39 (5): 965–83. Progress in Human Geography 39 (6): 702–28. ed. combined sewer problem: Pahl-Wostl. tems. resource management experts in Paraguay. 3rd ed. Stenner. . 1989. and J. COUSINS is the Ecology. Griesemer. M. Tuler. and the production of space. Research Institute. rationalities: Engaged ethnography and the meanings Worster. Professional Geographer 52 (4): 636–48. Kaika. S. JOSHUA J. Creating clean water cash flows developing private mar- Robards. kets for green stormwater infrastructure in Philadelphia. P. L. and R. M. Geoforum ———. and J.. provision of ecosystem services. B. Geoforum 37:185–99. NH 03755. method. divergent subjectivities among integrated water lowstone. Oxford. V. 2013.. J. and sustainability in shaping political of cyborg cities. 1998. Urban green improve the human conditions have failed.. J. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research versity Press. 2004. twentieth-century Spain. 1979. Engle. The importance of social drivers in the resilient New York: Natural Resources Defense Council. Holland. N. Malden. His research interests 1907–39. Unsettling neoliberal scape and Urban Planning 125:234–44.. 2013. London more: John Hopkins University Press. Scott. Athens: University of Geor. and New York: Routledge. London: ise and limits of Q method in human geography.. 2013.” Land- Sletto. Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to Wolch. New Haven. Rivers of empire: Water. L. 2nd ed. The politics of barstool biology: Environ. P. L. Schoon. Webler. Danielson. Doing Q methodological Robbins. MA: MIT Press. Conservancy. C. T. Tarr. In In the nature of cities: Urban political ecologies. Hey- in urban America from colonial times to the present. M. 2006. 2015. 21–40.. Kerr. A. P. joshua. Newell. Bayon. 2012. J. and S.. C. Krueger. capital. M. S. Devine. 2015. space. M. and the of responsibility in the Dominican Republic and Mex. D. Valderrama. Geoforum 35 (3): 361–73. The Sage. and P. Byrne. M. UK: Oxford Uni- ico. Transitions towards adaptive manage. ogy. 1984. J. Resources Management 21 (1): 49–62. Watts. research: Theory. and J. 46:91–102. Meek. and N. D. focus on issues of resource governance.. Uneven development: Nature. 2012. nen.18 Cousins Melosi. and Society Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Star. Eco-governmentality revisited: Mapping mental knowledge and power in greater Northern Yel. Cambridge. 2000. mouth College. Water of Urban History 5 (3): 308–39. Newell. and interpretation. Smith. Nygren. Social Studies of Science 19 (3): 387–420. J. K. Using Q Robertson. urban and infrastruc- Swyngedouw. Political ecology: A critical introduction. Institutional ecology.