EL EVANGELIO DE JUAN: ¿QUIEN ES ESTE HOMBRE?

27 Local residents’ contributions to decision-making usually show a lack of expertise, are not factual, or biased.

0 0 -2 -1 28. Big systems and dams or reservoirs are important for floods and stormwater mitigation,

but after the rain, how you handle that water is important for water quality and/or supply.

1 3 1 1 29 Centralized urban water systems are maladapted to address climate change impacts and

environmental stressors.

1 -1 0 0 30. Larger centralized projects for handling and capturing stormwater are typically more cost-

efficient than trying to treat it at thousands of small sources. Centralized stormwater projects make more financial sense than distributed and decentralized stormwater projects.

-1 3 -1 -1

31. LID offers economic benefits, such as deferring or even replacing costly large grey stormwater infrastructure projects. LID is more cost effective than gray infrastructure.

2 0 2 2 32. Resilience of urban water systems will be improved by moving away from the centralized

model and using more distributed solutions like green infrastructure.

1 -2 1 1 33. Distributed projects are not effective; they don’t scale up across the city or to other sites

and will never meet the level of stormwater abatement and/or capture needed. -2 -1 -1 -1

34. As we build green infrastructure we are going to change the nature of neighborhoods. We are going to push working class people out as we build more economic development around green space.

-1 -1 -2 -2 35. For every dollar we spend on a water quality project that’s one less emergency service

dollar, recreation dollar, or funds for other services. It’s hard to justify money for stormwater management.

-2 -2 -1 0 36. I’m really opposed to creating new institutions or rules to manage stormwater. There are

too many agencies and there is too much diversity already. -1 2 -2 0

37. I think there definitely will be a need for new institutions and rules to manage stormwater. 1 -2 1 -2 38. With many community groups and NGOs there are issues with them maintaining the

infrastructure or with them focusing too narrowly on certain issues. 0 1 0 -1

39. I think there’s enough NGO capacity within the city to have a better coordinated and

more strategic approach to green infrastructure. 0 0 0 1

40. Rather than focusing on new development, we need to focus on the existing development

and encourage retrofitting. Only looking at new developments hurts us. 2 2 1 0

Bold underlined are distinguishing statements (significant at p<0.05)

4.3.1. Factor one: The Market Skeptic

While incorporating more integrated approaches is a shared sentiment across all knowledge groups, the Market Skeptic shows a stronger commitment towards approaches that are integrated, but also driven by stronger rules and regulations rather than market approaches. Respondents who loaded high on this viewpoint include two people affiliated with academic institutions in Los Angeles, six people from environmental NGO’s, and one official from the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD). This group also contains actors who are often in conflict over the role of liability in stormwater management. One respondent, a water resource expert for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), loaded on this factor alongside an

139

official from the LACFCD. These two groups went to court over liability for discharges of pollutants into the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers that exceeded provisions under the CWA; the rulings eventually forced Los Angeles County and the LACFCD to address pollution in the two rivers. Post-sort interviews reveal that a shared dissatisfaction with current regulations and a desire for more clear and strict rules and regulations brings these two actors together.

A distinctive perspective among this group is that centralized urban water systems are maladapted to address climate change impacts and environmental stressors (#29, +1). The problem, as one NGO official noted, is that centralized infrastructure is “typically single purpose and usually destroys or eliminates other services.” Distributed green infrastructure projects are the preferred option for stormwater as the respondent goes on to say “because [green

infrastructure] and distributed stormwater projects seek to preserve multiple benefits and services” (Respondent 14, April 2016). As a result, green infrastructure and LID projects are typically viewed as a more cost-effective approach by preserving and allowing ecological processes to provide water retention, filtration, and bioremediation services. While space for these projects is recognized as a significant hurdle for implementation within the city, it is not recognized as a major limiting factor (#4, -2). A shared sentiment among the group is that effective green infrastructure can occur in small spaces and creative solutions can be developed to scale-up distribute stormwater projects to fit into the available spaces in the city (#33, -2).

This group of actors also shows ambivalence in comparison to other groups in terms of their perception of incentive programs. They neither agree nor disagree that getting people to apply to incentive programs is problematic because people do not care about stormwater

management or lack knowledge of water issues (#8, 0). Actors in follow-up interviews agree that people tend to respond well to incentive programs in southern California but more distributed

140

green infrastructure projects are still needed to engage community members in their neighborhoods about retaining and using stormwater.

What is unique about this perspective, however, is that it rejects market-oriented approaches over improved rule making and regulations. In contrast to the other knowledge groups, they agree that stormwater, or water more generally, should not be guided by market, economic, or financial principles (#17, +1). Corporate or private actors are also seen as unfit actors to have input on stormwater abatement targets they are held accountable to. For many in this perspective, too many loopholes in the current regulatory structure already exist for

regulated parties to escape responsibility. Market Skeptics also disagree that the development of a tradable credit system, with appropriate regulatory safeguards, will encourage investment in green infrastructure and help deliver stormwater mitigation at the lowest possible cost (#12, -1). Similarly, they do not view the development of a mitigation bank for stormwater management as a way to foster public-private partnerships to address stormwater by allowing developers to meet LID requirements by paying into a bank (#16, -1). Overall, Market Skeptics tend to be cautious of market oriented approaches and allowing corporate and private interests to influence stormwater management. As one NGO official noted:

Corporations and private interests are looking to maximize profits or minimize costs and not sustain the health of the watershed that is being managed. It is understandably

difficult to attach an economic cost to the value of a healthy watershed system. Corporate or private interests should be the last to have input on stormwater abatement targets they are held accountable to. (Respondent 18, April 2015)

4.3.2. Factor two: The Hydro-managerialist

The Hydro-managerial perspective favors large centralized projects for stormwater capture and market and data driven approaches for its management. Actors also support integrated