Citation
An examination of factors that either enable or constrain rainwater harvesting in the western United States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah

Material Information

Title:
An examination of factors that either enable or constrain rainwater harvesting in the western United States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah
Creator:
Greenberg, Rebecca Evans ( author )
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file (95 pages) : ;

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Water harvesting -- United States ( lcsh )
Rainwater -- United States ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Review:
The implementation of rainwater harvesting policy in the western United States has gained momentum since the early 21st century. While policies vary between the different western states, it is still not fully understood what factors have enabled rainwater harvesting practices and policies and what barriers rainwater harvesting practices and policies have faced in the western United States. The literature reviewed on rainwater harvesting practices and policies focuses on case studies from several nations worldwide that have existing rainwater harvesting practices and policies. Using insights gained from the literature on what either enables or constrains rainwater harvesting practices and policies, this research examines rainwater harvesting practices and the policy environment within the four-corner states of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah. The research focuses on what specifically either enabled or constrained rainwater harvesting practices and policy through a most similar case study approach. Data collection includes a newspaper analysis, policy analysis and interviews with professionals familiar with rainwater harvesting and with backgrounds in a law, academia, government and engineering. Results are compared and contrasted by state according to common themes. Results show the biggest enabler for rainwater harvesting practices and policies within the four-corner states was political culture of individuals living in those states. The most highly cited barriers were cost associated with rainwater harvesting systems and prior appropriation, the legal doctrine governing water law in these states. Recommendations as we look towards the future of rainwater harvesting include reevaluating how prior appropriation is applied to rainwater harvesting policy and recommendations for policymakers writing rainwater harvesting policies to require new construction include rainwater harvesting systems and provide cost reducing incentives such as rebates to encourage citizens to install rainwater harvesting systems.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.P.A.)--University of Colorado Denver.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographic references.
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe Readier.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Rebecca Evans Greenberg.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
911504039 ( OCLC )
ocn911504039

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

AN EXAMINATION OF FACTORS THAT EITHER ENABLE OR CONSTRAIN RAINWATER HARVESTING IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES OF ARIZONA, COLORADO, NEW MEXICO AND UTAH by REBECCA EVANS GREENBERG B.S., University of Colorado Boulder, 2005 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Administration 2015

PAGE 2

ii This thesis for t he Master of Public Administration degree by Rebecca Evans Greenberg has been approved for the School of Public Affairs By Tanya Heikkila, Chair Lloyd Burton Amanda Weaver April 21, 2015

PAGE 3

iii Greenberg, Rebecca Evans (Master of Public Administration ) An Examination of Factors that either Enable or Constrain Rainwater Harvesting in the w estern United States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah Thesis directed by Associate Professor Tanya Heikkila ABSTRACT The implementation of r ainwater harvesting policy in the w estern United States has gained momentum since the early 21 st century While policies vary between the different western states, it is still not fully understood what factors have enabled rainwater harvesting practices and policies and what barriers rainwater harv esting practices and policies have faced in the w estern United States. The literature reviewed on rainwater harvesting practices and policies focuses on case studies from several nations worldwide that have existing rainwa ter harvesting practices and policies. Using insights gained from the literature on what either enables or constrains rainwater harvesting practices and policies, t his research examines rainwater harvesting practices and the policy environment within the four corner states of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah The research focuses on what specifically either enabled or constrained rainwater harvesting practices and policy through a most similar case study approach. Data collection includes a newspap er analysis, policy analysis and interviews with professionals familiar with rainwater harvesting and with backgrounds in a law, academia, government and engineering. Results are compared and contrasted by state according to common themes. Results show t he biggest enabler for rainwater harvesting practices and policies within the four corner states was political culture of individuals living in those states. The most highly cited barriers were cost associated with rainwater

PAGE 4

iv harvesting systems and prior a ppropriation, the legal doctrine governing water law in these states. Recommendations as we look towards the future of rainwater harvesting include reevaluating how prior appropriation is applied to rainwater harvesting policy and recommendations for poli cymakers writing rainwater harvesting policies to require new construction include rainwater harvesting systems and provide cost reducing incentives such as rebates to encourage citizens to install rainwater harvesting systems. The form and content of th is abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Tanya Heikkila

PAGE 5

v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to the following individuals. Thank you to the members of my thesis committee: Dr. Tanya Heikkila, Dr. Lloyd Burton and Dr. Amanda Weaver for your time and insights. I would like to thank my husband, parents and friends who offered encouragement through this process. Additionally, I would like to express my appreciation to all of the individ uals who participated as part of the professional interviews.

PAGE 6

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. BACKGROUND ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 1 Purpose of Research ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 6 Rainwater Harvesting ................................ ................................ ................................ 6 The United States: Prior Appropriation & Riparian Water Law .............................. 8 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 10 II. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 13 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 13 Rainwater Harvesting Practices and Polic ies in Nation s tates ................................ .. 14 United States ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 18 Policy Change ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 19 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 21 III. RESEARCH METHODS ................................ ................................ .......................... 24 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 24 Policy Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 25 Newspaper Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 27 Interview s ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 31 Case Selection ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 34 IV. FINDINGS & DATA ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ............ 43 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 43 Arizona ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 43

PAGE 7

vii Colorado ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 49 New Mexico ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 53 Utah ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 57 State Comparison ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 60 V. DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ .............................. 66 VI. CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 73 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 7 5 APPENDIX ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 80

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES 1. Codes and Coding De finitions for Policy Analysis ................................ ..................... 27 2. Codes and Coding Defin itions for Newspaper Analysis ................................ ............. 30 3. Interview Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 32 4. Codes and Coding Defin itions for Interview Analysis ................................ ................ 33 5. Arizona Policy Summary ................................ ................................ ....................... 45 47 6. Arizona Newspaper En abling or Constraining Themes ................................ ............... 48 7. Arizona Interview En abling or Constraining Themes ................................ ................. 49 8. Colorado P olicy Summary ................................ ................................ ........................... 51 9. Colorado Newspaper En abling or Constraining Themes ................................ ............. 52 10. Colorado Interview En abli ng or Constraining Themes ................................ ............... 53 11. New Mexico Policy Summary ................................ ................................ ..................... 55 12. New Mexico Newspaper En abling or Constraining Themes ................................ ....... 56 13. New Mexico Interview En abling or Constraining Themes ................................ ......... 57 14. Utah Policy Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 58 15. Utah Newspaper En abling or Constraining Themes ................................ .................... 59 16. Utah Interview En abling or Constraining Themes ................................ ...................... 60 17. Themes Enabling or Cons training Rainwater Harvesting ................................ ........... 63

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF FIGURES 1. Population Compari son: 2010 to 2013 (estimate) ................................ ...................... 36 2. 2010: Land A rea & Persons Per Square Mile ................................ ............................. 37 3. 10 Year Total Precipitation Average and 3% Back to Stream Flow: three locations in each sta te ................................ ................................ ......................... 38 4. Arizona Annual Precipitation Map ................................ ................................ .............. 39 5. Colorado Annual Precipitation Map ................................ ................................ ............ 40 6. New Mexico Annual Precipitation Map ................................ ................................ ...... 41 7. Utah Annual Precipitation Map ................................ ................................ ................... 42

PAGE 10

1 CHAPTER I BACKGROUND 1.1 Introduction Water is a natural resource that is essential for maintaining life. Recently, the demand for water has increased in ste p with high levels of population growth and socio economic attributes across the world are recognizing the depletion of water resources and actively seeking new technologies for cons ervation measures. Along with facing innovative challenges, local, state, national and international forms of government are encountering challenges for water conservation policy. Several factors impacting the ability to conserve water include migration of individuals to urban climate variability and the limits of existing water management infrastructure For example, t he recent trend of migration from rural areas into fast expanding urban metropolises has strained ecosystems and created environmental problems. E very 21 years, the global demand for water has doubled (Li, Boyle, & Reynolds, 2010) As populations increase in urban areas, water conservation techniques may become necessary to supply enough water for the increasing demand. Coupled with increased water demand is the evolving p roblem of climate variability. According to Dinse (2011 p. 2 ), c limate v climate fluctuates yearly above or below a long t compared to c limate c hange term continuous change (increase or decrease) to average weather Climate variability can create water challenges by causing too much water at one time, increasing the chance of flooding or increasing

PAGE 11

2 the chance for severe drought Some water conservation techniques may help alleviate the strains of climate variability by allowing for storage of water from high rain events for use during droughts. By stud ying the flooding and drought effects of climate variability, advancements in engineering for water infrastructure can be obtained. In many locations throughout the United States, the aging water and stormwater infrastructure in existence creates problems for innovative water conservation solutions (Dinse, 2013) Specifically, in the ensen, Pomeroy, & Burian, 2013 p. 810 ) To combat the strain on infrastructure, localities could reengineer existing infrastructure to keep up with demand or implement water conservation techniques. R eengineer ing existing infrastructure may only alleviate problems caused by having too much water or too h igh a demand of water by urban residents and would not address the problem of limited water supply caused by drought or demand. The three factors of migration to urban areas climate variability and limits of existing water management infrastructure are int errelated and call the need for water conservation. Migration to urban areas affects both demand on water supply and demand on aging infrastructure to deliver water to an increased population Climate variability can lead to increased supply of water, putting high demands on existing water infrastructure. Additionally, climate variability can lead to decreased supply of water and negatively affect the amount of water available for consumption. According to the E nvironmental P rotection A gency (EPA) (2013), s trains on water supplies and our aging water treatment systems cause a variety of consequences for

PAGE 12

3 communities Some of these consequences include high water prices, increased watering restrictions and loss of lakes and rivers due to high water demand and evaporation Given these problems with water supply and demand conservation techniques are necessary In order to combat the increased strains on water supply caused by urban expansion, climate variability and aging infrastructure m any strate gies have been developed and implemented across the globe for water conservation. These methods include, but are not limited to: water efficient landscaping (e.g. native plants) water efficient irrigation, low flow fixtures (e.g. toilets, showerheads) an d non potable alternative water sources (e.g. greywater, rainwater) (EPA, 2014). While the previously mentioned tools may be used for water conservation in urban environments to address impacts from urban expansion, climate variability and aging infrastructure, another important factor to consider is the difference between conservation in urban environments versus conservation in rural settings. According to Brodahl & Shutkin (2011), with populations rising in municipalities, increased demand is placed on land used for agricultural and available water resources. Bretsen (2011) notes that the increased urban demand will cause water to shift away from agricultural uses. Another factor increasing the complex relationship between urban and rural demand for water is the changing climate. Predictions by scientists include r educed precipitation in the Southwest and earlier snowmelt in the Rockies leading to lower river flows during summer months (Brodahl & Shutkin, 2011). With increased demand on water resources from both urban and rural users, water conservation techniques are increasingly important (Brodahl & Shutkin, 2011).

PAGE 13

4 Focusing specifically on water conservation techniques that municipalities may be able to address the use of greywater as a water conservation to o l has gained popularity recently and the practice can be traced back to ancient times. Greywater is water that contains low levels of pollutants (e.g. rainwater, bath or shower water, and clothes washing water) and can be re used for toilet flushing, irrigation, or lawn water ing (Euzen & Morehouse, 2011). The potential for use of greywater as part of the water conservation toolkit is complex due to the infrastructure and technical requirements needed to install systems. A complete greywater system typically includes multiple tanks and filtration systems, a nd requires installation by a licensed plumber to avoid potential potable water contamination. Rainw a ter harvesting provides a simpler solution than greywater systems because it is done outside the home and potentially without the need to connect to pota ble water supplies. The practice of r ainwater harvesting by individuals has become more common recently as localities face the impacts of migration into urban areas climate variability and strains on water infrastructure Specifically in the United States, the passage policy relating to the practice of rainwater harvesting h as increased in the last decade, with laws, regulations and programs vary across states and local jurisdictions (Fricano & Grass, 2014) Thr oughout many foreign countries, the technique of rainwater harvesting is practiced regularly and often coupled with rainwater harvesting policy that lays out rules for amount of catchment allowed and incentives for collecting rain. The locations where thes e policies are present have urban and rural populations and climates ranging from arid to we t Policies are related to both commercial and residential buildings

PAGE 14

5 S ome challenges exist associated with establishing and implementing rainwater harvesting po licies within the United States For example, a disconnect exists between state and federal regulation in regards to rainwater harvesting and stormwater management ( Cummings, 2013). On the federal level, t he Clean Water Act requires states to manage stor mwater runoff to avoid point source pollution. One technique to manage stormwater runoff, especially after a high rain event, is rainwater harvesting. The particular prob l em occurs in individual states that do not allow rainwater harvesting as a result o f the prior appropriation doctrine governing water law. Prior appropriation refers to ownership of water, stating that the first person to divert the water owns the water. In states operating under the prior appropriation doctrine, capturing rainwater, e ven if the purpose is to manage stormwater as required by the federal government, is illegal. Along with differences in policy on the federal and state level, variations in policy exist between states and within states (Fricano & Grass, 2014) According t o research by Fricano & Grass (2014), stand alone rainwater harvesting policies were preferred over inclusion of rainwater harvesting policies under plumbing or health codes. These stand alone policies might differ by municipality due to differences in climate, existing water law and existing water and stormwater infrastructure. Still, with its potential to decrease the demand on potable water supplies (Fricano & Grass, 2014), rainwater harvesting is fast be coming a component of the water conservation toolkit Rainwater harvesting may be particularly important to the western United States which has faced severe drought and flooding recently as a result of climate variability (UCAR, 2014).

PAGE 15

6 1.1.1 Purpose of Research The purpose of this research is to explain how and why governments, within semi arid regions in the United States, would either promote or inhibit rainwater harvesting practices and polic ies as an innovative, water conservation tool. The research will specifically focus on the four corner states of Arizona, Colorado New Mexico and Utah. The research will attempt to understand what either enables or constrains the development of rainwater harvesting practices through laws regulations and program s with in these four states. Within the following research, laws, regulations and programs are referred to more generally as policies and rainwater harvesting practices refer to the physical process of harvesting rain Data collection follows a most similar case study approach including a policy analysis, newspaper analysis and interviews with professionals knowledgeable about rainwater harvesting The following sections of Cha pter I are included to provide background information on rainwater harvesti ng and water law in the United States First, a description of the process and technical requirements for a rainwater harvesting system are described. Second, both active and passive rainwater harvesting systems are explained. Finally, a historical revi ew of water law in the United States is presented. 1.2 Rainwater Harvesting 1.2.1 Process & Technical Requirements The following section details the process and technical requirements for a rainwater harvesting system and references information in the Oregon S mart Guide for Rainwater Harvesting published by the Department of Consumer & Business Services,

PAGE 16

7 Building Codes Division (2015). This guide provides a detailed, accurate and comprehensive explanation on rainwater harvesting. The process of rainwater harve sting involves catching rainwater and storing it for later use, typically with roof collection systems. Storage tanks are referred to as cisterns and can be placed either above or buried below ground. According to the Oregon Guide (2015), roof systems ty pically capture 75% of rainfall with 25% being lost to leaks and 2015, p. 4). When measuring a roof, the capture area is the exterior square footage around the gutter line. Before installing a rainwater harvesting system, a decision needs to be made about the size of the cistern needed. The size of the cistern depends on projected water use and potential av erage precipitation. An average American uses between 50 and 70 gallons of water per day, with increases during summer months for yard irrigation and decreases in winter. A larger cistern allows for higher storage capacity when anticipating future climat e variability for droughts and heavy precipitation events. Rain collected from rooftops contains contaminants and in order to reduce these contaminants, a filtering system should be installed. According to the Oregon Guide ( 2015, p. 8 n per 100 foot of roof area should be discarded after each rain Another consideration to remember when installing a rainwater harvesting system is the designation between potable and non potable water. Potable water is water that has been treated and is safe for consumption. Conversely, non potable water has not been treated and not safe for consumption. Harvested rainwater, even after having performed

PAGE 17

8 a first fl ush diversion, is considered non potable water. It is possible to treat the harvested rainwater with chemicals or ultra violet light system to make the water potable. When piping non potable rainwater, purple pipe and fittings are required as purple is u niversal identifier for non potable water. 1.2.2 Active, Passive, Macro & Micro Rainwater harvesting systems take a form of either active of passive catchment. Active systems are generally manmade and allow for storage of large volumes of water for a us e at a later time. Passive systems are often embedded in landscape design and intended to catch runoff and divert it for use within the landscape. The scale of rainwater harvesting systems can be defined on a macro or micro level with macro relating to i ndustrial development and micro to households. Often macro level catchment systems are active, but examples of passive systems exist, such as a passive system to divert runoff in parking lots (Cummings, 2013). 1.3 The United States: Prior Appropriation & Riparian Water Law Prior to focusing on specifics related to Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah, a review of current United States water law is presented. The review of water law in the United States helps explain why water is treated differently b etween the East and West. The following sections review the two main distinctions of water rights in the United States, prior appropriation and riparian water law, and explain the process and technical requirements related to rainwater harvesting practice s Historically, water law in the United States has be en generally split between the eastern and w estern United States, with the former following riparian water law, and the latter, prior appropriation. Riparian water law allows any landowner bordering a stream

PAGE 18

9 access to water from the stream, regardless if the water was used previously (Wilkinson, 1992). Riparian law still exists in the eastern United States, where precipitation is heavier than the West and rivers are larger. Initially when the w estern United States was settled, riparian rule attempted to govern water law, but with the increase in irrigation and limited water resources, prior appropriation was born (Stenger, 1954 ) gold mining rule s in the w estern United S tates during the mid ( Wilkinson, 1992) According to Wilkinson (1992), the prior appropriation doctrine was originally adopted for nearly all water in the West althou gh variations of the interpretation of prior appropriation exist within states These variations in interpretation result from differing interpretations of the doctrine by state legislatures and dissimilar processes to administer water rights between stat es In order to obtain a water right, the water first needs to be diverted from the stream. After diversion, the water is required to be put to beneficial use and not be wasted. Beneficial use by courts and later by state legislature as (Wilkinson, p. 234, 1992). The doctrine of prior appropriation says that once a stream is Kwasniak, 2012, p. 2), it forms a property right and as the diversion of water creates a water right, it also creates the owner of this water right (Wilkinson, 1992). According to Bretsen (2011), w ater rights are represented by level of priority with the most senior priority given to the first person to obtain an appropriative right. After senior appropriate rights are established, junior appropriate rights may also exist being

PAGE 19

10 next in line for appropriations after senior appropriator rights are fu lfilled Even if beneficial use is established by existing appropriations, it does not guarantee everyone with water rights will have access to water. Currently in many western s tates, water is over appropriated. Most of the trepidation regarding rainwa ter harvesting is due to the potential legal and political consequences from impacting holders of senior appropriations (Cummings, 2013) Many water users have spent considerable amounts of time in court arguing about water law, and incurring major legal expenses Because of the complex litigation surrounding water law, obtaining a deep u nderstanding of prior appropriation is essential to understanding what underlying factors either enable or constrain rainwater harvesting. The four corner states under review in this thesis operate under prior appropriation and have observed differen ces relating to rainwater harvesting policy. Within the four corner states, some jurisdictions have been more successful than others at developing rainwater harvesting laws, regulations and programs. 1.4 Summary Rainwater harvesting is connected to many issues facing society today As populations move into urban areas, they create a strain on existing water supply and infrastructure. Climate variability can cause excess precipitation or drought, with the former straining water management infrastructure and the latter decreasing the supply of available water. Migration into urban areas climate variability and aging infrastructure could all benefit from water conservation Rainwater harvesting could be an important tool for water conservation and might help society in the future by reducing strain on

PAGE 20

11 water supply in urban settings, lessening the demand on existing water infrastructure and helping mitigate water shortage i ssues during droughts. Although rainwater harvesting has the potential to act as a water conservation tool, possible barriers exist to wide spread adoption. One example of a possible legal barrier might be realized in states operating under the prior appropriation doctrine where rainwater is considered to be already appropriated by a more senior appropriator An example of a technical barrier to the installation rainwater harvesting systems is present when a desire exists to divert the rainwater for p otable uses. Using rainwater for potable uses requires filtration and special plumbing piping requirements to differentiate between potable and non potable water. Given the goal of understand ing what factors either enable or constrain rainwater harvesti ng practices and polic ies within the four corner states of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah, this thesis will address the following questions: 1. What laws and regulations are governing rainwater harvesting in the four corner states and how do they enab le or constrain rainwater harvesting ? 2. What differences or similarities exist across the states that might explain why some states have policies that are more enabling of rainwater harvesting? 3. What differences or similarities exist across states that might explain why some st ates are more restrictive of rainwater harvesting? The following sections of the thes is will attempt to answer these research questions. In C hapter II a review of literature on rainwater harvesting is presented. The literature examine d shows common themes in rainwater harvesting between several nation states Chapter III details the research methods followed when gathering data for

PAGE 21

12 Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah through a policy analysis, newspaper analysis and professional interviews. Chapter III also includes a Case Selection section providing a geographic and socioeconomic comparison between the four states. In Chapter I V the findings and data analysis are presented by state, preceded by a summary on existing United States water and rainwater policy. Chapter V provides an in depth discussion on the research results, recommendations and forward thinking on the future of rainwater harvesting. Finally in Chapter VI a conclusion is presented synthesizing the research References and an A ppendix a re included at the end of this document.

PAGE 22

13 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction In thinking about the broader context of water conservation management, r ainwater harvesting is a piece of the water conservation toolkit. Rainwater harvesting has been implemented and studied worldwide In the United States, rainwater harvesting has b een implemented sporadically across the West and policy formation is in its infancy, particularly in the four corner states of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah. By examining rainwater harvesting that appears throughout the world, we might be able to gain insight which can be applied to the piecemeal rain water harvesting practices and polic ies in the w estern United States. The literature review that follows will discuss five locations across the world where the practice of rainwater harvesting exists focusing on the topics of acceptance, incentives and impact to water supply. Although the focus of the literature review points to factors that lead individuals to adopt rainwater harvesting practices, the behaviors leading to the adoption of rainwater harvesting practices by individuals might inform policymakers on the best way to design policies. The focus on acceptance, the role of incentives, and impacts to water supply, may provide policymakers with the underlying issues to be addressed when creati ng rainwater harvesting policy. Understanding acceptance, the role of incentives and impacts to water supply is important to the research questions posed because it allows better understanding on potential factors either enabling or constraining rainwater harvesting policy. After the review of literature among nation states detailing factors that enable or constrain

PAGE 23

14 rainwater harvesting practices a brief review of literature from the United States is also presented, followed by a review of factors impact ing policy change. 2.3 Rainwater Harvesting Practices and Polic ies in Nation s tates A plethora of rainwater polic ies exist among several nation states on varying scales and within urban and rural environments. S everal studies have highlighted these rainwater harvesting programs The studies discussed in this review are from Australia B razil, Ireland Sweden and the United Kingdom The geographies range from arid to wet and population of rural and urban and are examined with the question in mind of what enables or constrains rainwater harvesting. 2.3.1 Acceptance In rural Brazil the government implemented a program entitled Program of Trainin g and Social Mobilization for Liv ing within the Semi arid One Million Rural Cisterns The program wor ked to install rain water harvesting systems including cisterns at rural locations in o rder to provide drinking water for citizens (Gomes, Heller, & Pena, 2012). In their study, Gomes et al. (2012) attempted to understand the effectiveness of this progr am and whether or not it was meeting the demands of th e beneficiaries of the program. They found success of the program depended highly on individual responsibility citing operating and maintenance of the rainwater harvesting system as a barrier to use Other barriers to use found were ability of the beneficiary families to understand how the rainwater harvesting system operated technically speaking motivation to use the system and potential public health impacts from using rainwater which had not had a first flush diversion. Gomes et al. (2012) concluded that continued government assistance

PAGE 24

15 was needed after initial implementation of the rainwater harvesting system in order to make the program successful. The urban Australia case study presented by Ryan, Splash, & Measham ( 2009 ) used a survey to understand how likely it was for households to irrigate their gardens using rainwater. In the study, they attempted to link socio eco nomic variables such as income, gender, education, and age to the likelihood of using rainwater harvesting systems Ryan et al. (2009) found the se socio economic measures were not good indicators of who was most likely to use these systems Instead, they found property size, roof size and garden type were better indicators for a household implementing a rainwater harvesting system. Ryan et al. (2009) posited that residents who found rainwater harvesting simple to use and those using rainwater harvesting had more knowledge of water conservation methods in general In both the Brazil and Australia case studies, the focus was on small scale and individual use. One similari ty seen in both studies was the understanding of how the rainwater harvesting system s worked on a technical level. In Brazil, the households where the government installed rainwater harvesting systems were only successful at using their rainwater harvesting systems if they understood the technical aspects of the system. In Australia th ose who found rainwater harvesting to be technically simple had higher adoption of the practice Ryan et al. (2009) cited several other factors relating to the acceptance of rainwater harvesting systems in the Australia case study The study found that female and lower income residents were more likely to use rainwater harvesting systems and that more personal control over a tank lessened worry about potential health concerns In the

PAGE 25

16 U nited K ingdom study, public opinion impacted the acceptan ce of water management strategies (Ward, Butler & Memon, 2008). The United Kingdom example focused on a pilot study to understand attitudes and perceptions of rainwater harvesting. The pilot study implemented a survey to individuals that focused on risk and maintenance associated with rainwater harvesting systems. According to Ward et al. (2008), individuals perceived risk increased with individual ownership of the rainwater harvesting system and individuals underestimated the frequency of maintenance. Both factors from the U nited K ingdom study could be potential barriers to rainwater harvesting acceptance. Another factor influencing acceptance of rainwater harvesting systems was water conservation and monetary savings. Domenech & Sauri (2010) found th at citizens were more focused on the potential water savings than the cost of installing rainwater harvesting systems. In this example, cost of rainwater harvesting systems was not a barrier to acceptance. An interesting connection can be made from Ryan et al. (2009) between acceptance and socio economic conditions due to the fact that female and lower income families were more likely to accept the rainwater system because they saw immediate individual benefit from doing so. In both examples, cost was no t a barrier to rainwater harvesting. 2.3.2 Incentives Even though a few studies found cost of rainwater harvesting systems not to be a barrier to adoption much of the literature points to cost as a barrier and t hroughout many of the foreign case studies incentives reappear as a common theme to combat cost Ward, et al. (2008) found in the United Kingdom, grants were cited as the biggest

PAGE 26

17 incentive for individuals installing rainwater harvesting systems ( ~ 41%), followed by monetary savings on water bills ( ~22%), environmental impact (~22%), drought & new policies (~5%) and peer pressure & unrestricted water use ~2%). Fricano & Grass (2014) found programs within Germany, Australia and the United States Virgin Islands having incentives including grants, subsidies and charges, Germany focuses rainwater harvesting efforts by offering monetary savings through grants and subsidies, the communal rainwater harvesting program in Australia provi des filtered water for a group of houses and the U.S. Virgin Islands has implemented mandatory rainwater harvesting (Fricano & Grass, 2014). 2.3. 3 Impact on Water Supply The sections above on acceptance and incentives allude to the potential impact rain water harvesting may have on water supply. A cceptance of rainwater harvesting is tied to potential for water conservation which could reduce demand for water and m andatory rainwater harvesting has been implemented in the U.S. Virgin Islands to reduce stra in on water supply From the five case studies, t he impact on water supply was essentially uniform stating that rainwater harvesting could potentially impact the existing strain on water supply The million cistern program in Brazil contain s a small exce ption based on the fact that the rainwater systems may not have been used to full capacity due to their location in rural areas. In Sweden, where only .5% of their available water resource is used, found that urbanization was putting a huge strain on drin king water supply (Villarreal & Dixon, 2005). Through implementation of rainwater harvesting systems on

PAGE 27

18 high density buildings, Sweden was able to recognize large water saving s A ccording to Villarreal & Dixon (2005), water savings was highly related to storage capacity and not large collection areas. In the U nited K ingdom rainwater harvesting is shown to reduce strain on water supplies and serves as a stormwater management tool 2. 4 United States A very limited amount of research exists on what factors enable or constrain rainwater harvesting within the United States. One source of data identified was Fricano (2014) evaluation of three rainwater harvesting policies and programs in Austin, Texas; Tucson, Arizona; and Portland, Oregon. Fricano & Grass (2014) found that rainwater harvesting policy in the United States exists at a rudimentary level with a limited number of rainwater harvesting policies existing at the municipal level and wit h most of the literature related to rainwater harvesting being found in instructional guides. Additionally according to Fricano & Grass (2014), cost (both for rainwater harvesting systems and policy development), publi c health concerns and politics are no ted as barriers to rainwater harvesting. While the evaluation performed by Fricano & Grass (2014) provided research focused on regions in the United States following both prior appropriation and riparian water law, a need exists for further research on w hat either enables or constrains rainwater harvesting practices and policies specifically in the semi arid United States operating under the prior appropriation doctrine As discussed in the literature review, examples exist worldwide on what either ena bles or constrains rainwater harvesting practices by individuals The themes from the literature relating to acceptance, incentives and impact on water supply might inform policymakers on issues to address when

PAGE 28

19 implementing rainwater harvesting policy. A dditionally, a minimal amount of literature exists on rainwater harvesting policy in the United States. To fill this gap, this thesis explores what enables or constrai ns rainwater harvesting in the w estern United States using case studies from Arizona, Col orado, New Mexico and Utah. 2. 5 Policy Change In order to understand potential impacts to implementing rainwater harvesting policy, it is important to understand what factors may influence policy change. The policy process is often very complex with man y variables (Sabatier & Weible, 2007). Many diverse theoretical frameworks exist to help better explain the policy process including the Institutional Rational Choice framework, the Multiple Streams Framework, the Punctuated Equilibrium Framework and the Advocacy Coalition Framework. According to Sabatier & Weible (2007), the Institutional Rational Choice Framework is widely used in the United States and relies on the concept that individuals are materially self interested and focuses on how rules change behavior of these rational individuals. Multiple streams framework an opportunity is created for policy creation. The Punctuated equilibrium framework Finally, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF ) believes that policy change should be looked over a period of time ( a decade or more ) and stresses the importance of scientific and technical information (Sabatier & Weible, 2007).

PAGE 29

20 The ACF is important because the framework has historically been applie d to many Untied States energy and environmental policies. The initial catalyst for Weible, 2007, p. 208). been applied to environmental policy ranging from Forest Policy (Burnett & Davis, 2002), Water Policy (Metodi 2012) and Climate Change Policy (Niederberger, 2005). Du e to the importance of the ACF in understanding how environmental policy is shaped and the research objectives of this thesis to understand rainwater harvesting policy the framework is explained in more detail below. The ACF believes players in policy change are comprised of c oalitions, with coalitions being comprised of subsystems and bou nd together by individuals who have similar beliefs. The ACF has three levels of beliefs based on a hierarchical structure of deep co re beliefs, policy core beliefs and secondary beliefs. Deep core beliefs are stable and hard to change, policy core belie fs are normative and shape the policy subsystem and secondary beliefs are narrow in scope and easily cha nged (Sabatier & Weible, 2007). The ACF explains four paths that may lead to change: policy oriented learning external perturbations events specific to internal subsystems and negotiated agreements between several coalitions (Weible, Sabatier, & McQueen 200 9 ). First, p olicy oriented learning is realized over a long period of time and the amount of change witnessed depends on the level of beliefs. For example, policy oriented learning may have more of an impact on changing secondary core beliefs than policy core beliefs since secondary core beliefs change more easily Second, e xamples of external perturbations lea ding to policy change might include changes in government,

PAGE 30

21 enactment of new laws, disaster and socioeconomic conditions (Sabatier & Weible, 2007). Third, i et al., 2009, p. 124). Finally, cross coalition learning occurs in settings where coalitions can safely and collaboratively negotiate agreements (Weible, et al., 2009) Other contributors to policy change have been linked to the role of the media and lack of resistance to changing policy. Steelman (2010) noted that successful policy implementation occurs when there is little resistance to the proposed idea, most likely an example of s econdary core beliefs from the Advocacy Coalition Framework The ro le of media telling policy stories was linked as a contributor to the policy change process in literature by Shanahan, McBeth, Hathaway, & Arnell (2008). 2. 6 Summary From the literature examined from several nation states it is apparent that several facto rs led to the acceptance of rainwater harvesting including knowledge and comfort of technical aspects of rainwater harvesting, desire to conserve water, monetary savings public opinion, incentives regulations and impact on water supply Also, several f actors were recognized as barriers to rainwater harvesting including: lack of knowledge about technical aspects of rainwater harvesting systems, public health concerns, and risk of having a rainwater harvesting system general cost of rainwater harvesting systems, political opposition and maintenance costs. Although the literature speaks to factors influencing acceptance of rainwater harvesting practices on a household level the same factors are likely to influence policy adoption of rainwater harvesting Policymakers could use the themes that enabled or

PAGE 31

22 constrained rainwater harvesting practices to shape the language of policy. For example, a policymaker could write policies to include incentives which provided monetary savings on the components of rai nwater harvesting system s and education on the technical aspects of rainwater harvesting. The themes identified in the literature from the nation states may help explain what enables or constrains rainwater harvest ing practices and policies in the United States; however, a deeper examination is necessary in order to better understand rainwater harvesting practices and policies specifically in the western United States. Based on the themes identified in the literature from the nation states we can posit that the ability to implement rainwater harvesting might be enabled by community acceptance, monetary incentives and impact on water supply while rainwater harvesting might be constrained by cost and political barriers More specifically on the factors possibly enabling rainwater harvesting practices and policies a cceptance of rainwater harvesting might be influenced by the ability to understand the technology behind rainwater harvesting systems and their ease of use, public support of the practice of r ainwater harvesting and understanding the benefit s rainwater harvesting provides. Monetary incentives may be included by policy makers when implementing rainwater harvesting policy in order to reduce costs and encourage citizens to conserve water through the practice of rainwater harvesting It may be important for policy makers to understand the current impacts on water supply so policy design can address factors such as increased water demand and strains on current water infrastructure.

PAGE 32

23 In regards to sp ecifics on p otential barriers policymakers may encounter when trying to im plement rainwater harvesting policy cost and political barriers may represent the largest barriers. Cost may relate to the cost of the entire rainwater harvesting system or be rela ted to the upkeep and maintenance of systems. Political barriers may take the form of existing laws in a locality or deeply rooted public perception and opinion In thinking about the factors enabling or constraining rainwater harvesting, potential conn ections to the Advocacy Coalition Framework could be drawn It is possible that secondary core beliefs could be changed relating to rainwater harvesting practices and polic ies as a result of a new policy being implemented or as a response to a natural dis aster. It is also possible the media might lead to a policy change by the way it frames rainwater harvesting On the flipside, barriers to policy change could be the inability to change deep core beliefs, such as prior appropriation water law The resea rch that follows will attempt to understand what either enables or constrains rainwater harvesting practices and the development of rainwater harvesting laws, regulations and programs within Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah.

PAGE 33

2 4 CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS 3.1 Introduction The completed research attempt ed to explain what either enable s or constrain s rainwater harvesting practices and polic ies and what similarities and/ or differences between the four states might explain the existence and/ or absence o f rainwater harvesting practices and polic ies The data collection followed a most similar case study approach and include d a policy analysis, a review of newspaper articles and interviews with professionals. The data collected from these different case studies were integrated and synthesized to answer the posed research question. The western states chosen for analysis were Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. This subset of states, also known as the four corner states, was selected because the stat es have existing rainwater laws or policies and operate under the prior appropriation doctrine. These four states also share similar geographical characteristics and climates. Data w ere synthesized between the po licy analysis, newspaper analysi s and inter views after each form of data collection was completed independently. After the data were synthesized, they were organized by themes. The themes were developed inductively and characterized according to common conceptions. The identified themes include d : Catalyst Climate Variability Cost Political Culture Formal Policy Incentives Political Opposition Political Support Pricing of Water Prior Appropriation Public Health Savings Stormwater Management Technical and Water Supply Some themes re presented factors that both enabled or constrained rainwater

PAGE 34

25 harvesting and some themes were only related to enabling or only related constraining rainwater harvesting The Findings and Data Analyses S ection include s tables of common themes developed fro m the coding of the policies, newspaper articles and interviews All data w ere coded in Excel and analyzed according to important and reoccurring themes. Below is a narrative on how the data w ere collected for each stage of the research. 3. 2 Policy Analysis The first source of data collection was a policy analysis. The policy analysis examined laws, regulations and programs existing in the four corner states selected for study The policy analysis show ed how enacted legislation and passed r egulations laid out the details pertaining rainwater harvesting law s regulation s and programs. Also, the policy analysis aided in the selection of individuals for the interview portion of data collection. The particular themes contained in each law, regu lation and program were of high interest, especially in understanding the similarities and differences within the four states. The similarities and differences ar e used in the Findings and Data Analysis section to help understand why states rules either e nable or constrain rainwater harvesting. For the policy analysis, a web search was performed to identify laws, regulations and programs in the four corner states. The key words used include d name of the state, major cities with in the state, law, regula tion, ordinance, policy, program, rainwater harvesting and /or collection. The searches moved methodically, one state at a time, starting with Ari zona, then Colorado, New Mexico and ending with Utah. The policy

PAGE 35

26 analysis was revisited if additional laws, r egulations and programs were discovered during the newspaper article review or interview data collection. Several types of data, including key words and themes, were co ded and entered into Excel to analyze the formal laws, regulations and programs. First, each policy was given a unique identifier. This unique identifying number was coded in Excel as well as written on the paper copy for eas e in future identification. Other codes include d the Document Title Date whether it is New or Revised what Type of Document (e.g. law, regulation, or program), Key Policy Makers M easures for Tracking Policy if the policy Enables or Constrains a policy Summary Definition of Rainwater and Follow Up Questions Table 3.1 b elow describ es how each of these items were used to analyze the formal policies or how they aid ed in additional research.

PAGE 36

27 Table 3.1 Codes and Coding Definitions for Policy Analysis Codes Coding Definition State The name of state was recorded for future reference to compare and contrast states. Document Title The document title was important for identifying key words used in rainwater harvesting policy and future reference when completing interviews. Date The date was used to identify newspaper articles, searching for additional. New or Revis ed? Identifying whether a policy was new or revised helped explain how far along a state or jurisdiction was in the policy formation process. Type of Document Recording the type of document was necessary in order to eventually put each document type into a normalized category for data collection. Key Policy Makers Key policy makers and their place of business identified were used as contacts for the interview portion of data collection. Measures for Tracking Policy Measures/Tracking refers whether or n ot any follow up was designated in the policy. For example: a tax credit or a permit. Enables This section of the data collection asked the policy how or why it enables rainwater harvesting. Constrains This section of the data collection asked the polic y how or why it constrains rainwater harvesting. Summary The summary section was used for future reference of the policy during the interviews or final thesis write up. Definition of Rainwater The definition of rainwater was used for three reasons. First, it was used to identify different nomenclature associated with rainwater harvesting. These different terms were used in further newspaper and/or policy searches. Second, whether or not a policy defines rainwater may give an inclination of where th ey are in the policy formation process. Third, comparing and contrasting the existing definitions aided recommendations for future policy. Follow Up Questions If certain questions arose from the review of policies, they were noted and asked during interv iews. 3. 3 Newspaper Analysis The second source of data collection for the case studies was newspaper articles. The newspaper analysis builds on and compliments the policy analysis by explaining the background story on how laws, regulations and programs were formed. The review of

PAGE 37

28 newspaper articles helps explain the reasons behind why states enable or constrain rainwater harvest ing. Also, the newspaper analysis aided in the selection of individuals for the interview portion of data collection. The first method of r esearch in this section included identification of newspaper articles through a web search using key words. Simil ar to the policy data collection, the key words used include d the name of the state, major cities with in the state, law, regulation, ordinance, policy, program, rainwater harvesting and/or collection. Additionally, the searches moved methodically, one st ate at a time, starting with Arizona, then Colorado, New Mexico, and ending with Utah. Unlike the policy analysis data collection, the second method of research in newspaper articles was a search of the Lexis Nex i s database and was twofold. Initially, a search was done using the same key word s used during the web search. The initial search returned between 30 and 900 articles depending on the key word used. A secondary search was performed with additional key words, helping to pare down the large numbe r of articles in the Lexis Nex i s database to the most relevant information. A total of 30 newspaper articles were reviewed for the newspaper analysis : 10 for Arizona, 6 for Colorado, 9 for New Mexico, 4 for Utah and 1 wh ich included information pertainin g to Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico A date range using the time period when the law, regulation or program was formed was helpful at pinpointing related newspaper articles. The collection of data for the newspaper articles followed a similar approach to the policy analysis data collection. Articles were coded in Excel and given a unique identifier number which was also written on the top of each paper copy of the article. Other codes include the State Document Title, Date Name of Newspaper Search Terms

PAGE 38

29 Used Key Individuals Involved Enables Constrains Why How Summary Antagonist Protagonist Definition of Rainwater and Follow Up Questions Table 3.2 b elow describ es how each of these items will be used to analyze the newspaper articles or aid in additional research.

PAGE 39

30 Table 3.2 Codes and Coding Definitions for Newspaper Analysis Codes Coding Definition State The name of state was recorded for future reference to compare and contrast states. Document Title The document title was important for identifying key words used in rainwater harvesting policy and future reference when completing interviews. Date The date was used to identify newspaper articles, searching for additional policies and in creating a timeline for the policy fo rmation process. Name of Newspaper Identifying whether a policy was new or revised help ed explain how far along a state or jurisdiction was in the policy formation process Search Terms Used Recording the type of document was necessary in order to eventually put each document type into a normalized category for data collection. Key Individuals Involved Key policy makers and their place of business identified were used as contacts for the interview portion of data collection. Enables This section of the data collection asked the policy how or why it enables rainwater harvesting. Constrains This section of the data collection asks the policy how or why it constrains rainwater harvesting. Why Why asked why the policy came about. How How asked how did the policy come about. Summary The summary section was used for future reference of the policy during the interviews or final thesis write up. Antagonist The antagonist data section identifies individual s and/or reasons which acted as an opponent, competitor, enemy, or rival to rainwater harvesting policy formation. Protagonist The protagonist data section identifies individuals and/or reasons which acted as the heroine/hero, proponent, or advocate to ra inwater harvesting policy formation. Definition of Rainwater The definition of rainwater was used for three reasons. First, it was used to identify different nomenclature associated with rainwater harvesting. These different terms were used in further n ewspaper and/or policy searches. Second, whether or not a policy defines rainwater may give an inclination of where the specific jurisdiction is in the policy formation process. Third, comparing and contrasting the existing definitions aided in recommend ations for future policy. Follow Up Questions If certain questions arose from the review of policies, they were noted and asked during interviews.

PAGE 40

31 3. 4 Interviews Interviews with professionals are the third source of data collected in the case study approach. The interviews validat e d and complement ed the first two stages of data collection. The timing of interviews occurred after the policy analysis and newspaper article analysis was complete. The interview data collection was entwined with the fi rst two stages of data collection in multiple ways. First, insight gained from policy and newspaper analysis research aided in drafting interview questions and identifying interview subjects. Second, individuals who were referred to by name in the polici es and newspaper articles were used as an initial starting point for contacting potential interviewees. I f businesses or government offices were mentioned in the policies or newspaper articles they were contacted for a recommendation on someone to speak with for an interview. Third, while the policy analysis explains what laws or regulations have been agreed upon, the interviews, similar to the newspaper articles, help ed to understand the underlying story behind the policy formation. The interviews prov ide contextual information about both the extent and types of rainwater harvesting programs in a state, and information about what factors either facilitate d or discourage d states from develop ing rainwater harvesting policies. A total of 29 professional interviews were completed : 7 in Arizona, 10 in Colorado, 6 in New Mexico and 6 in Utah. In order to ensure commonality between the interview data source s the type of professional s interviewed were consistent across all four states. For example, each sta te included an interview from a lawmaker, water attorney, university professor, government employee and engineer.

PAGE 41

32 Interview questions are listed in the T able 3.3 below. Table 3.3 Interview Questions 1 (Intro question) I know you currently hold the position of ____________. Please tell me about your familiarity with water conservation technologies, including rainwater harvesting. 2 To what extent have you been involved in developing or implementing policies or programs associated with water conserva tion and rainwater harvesting ? 3 In the context of water conservation, which methods or strategies do you think need the most attention at this time? (For example, rainwater harvesting watering restrictions, low flush/low flow requirements, commercial, residential) 4 What has been your involvement in the creation or adoption of policy/programs/laws that enable rainwater harvesting ? 5 Based on your experience, what do you perceive to be the biggest barriers to developing policies/laws/programs that allo w rainwater harvesting ? 6 Based on your experience, what factors do you think allowed [your jurisdiction or agency] to establish rainwater harvesting policies/law/programs in [insert jurisdiction here]? o Probe: What steps would you recommend other policymakers or decision makers take to devise policies that enable rainwater harvesting ? o Probe: To what extent do you think cultural or demographic characteristics enable or constrain the development of policie s that promote rainwater harvesting law/policy/programs? 7 What opportunities do you see for the future in the area of rainwater harvesting policy or law for [your jurisdiction or agency]? 8 What advice would you give to a local municipality, city or state operating in the early stages of forming rainwater harvesting policies/laws? 9 Any individuals you would recommend I contact for an interview? 10 Any other final thoughts you would like to share? After interviews were complete, the interview notes were transcribed into Excel using the following categories summarized in Table 3.4, to synthesize specific comments into common themes.

PAGE 42

33 Table 3.4 Codes and Coding Definitions for Interview Analysis Code Coding Definition State The name of state was recorded for future reference to compare and contrast states. Interviewee Title The professional title was recorded for future reference to compare and contrast across professional opinions. Enables This section of the data collection identified comments about what factors enable rainwater harvesting. Constrains This section of the data collection identified comments about what factors constrain rainwater harvesting. Advice for Municipalitie s Interviewees were asked if they had any advice for municipalities in the infancy of enacting rainwater harvesting policy. This infor mation was used for the recommendations section of this document. Future of Rainwater Harvesting By understanding what the interviewees see as the future of rainwater harvesting, underlying issues were identified about what is enabling or constraining policy currently, and what potential future uses could be. Water Conservation? By asking interviewee s how they see rainwater harvesting fitting in the larger scale of water conservation, underlying issues were identified about what is enabling or constraining policy currently, and what potential future uses could be. Other The other section made note of additional important information which does not fit into the other common themes. Quote The quote section was used to identify outstanding statements or repeated statements from interviewees.

PAGE 43

34 3 .5 Case Selection In order to understand the broader physical and social context of the four states chosen information was gathered from the United States Census Bureau (Census gov, 2014 ) population, persons per square mile and land area in square miles. Figure 3 .1 s hows the population in all four states and compares population between 2010 and 2013. Arizona has the highest total population, followed by Colorado, Utah and New Mexico. Projected population increase is highest in Utah, followed by Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico. Figure 3.2 shows a comparison of the land area and persons per square mile between all four states. Arizona has the second most land area and most people per square mile. Colorado has the third most land area and second most people per squa re mile. New Mexico has the largest land area and smallest people per square mile and Utah has the smallest land area and second smallest population per square mile. Figure 3.3 compares the four states on precipitation. Three urban locations were chosen from each state for comparison and a 10 year average was used. The data collected for Figure 3 came from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric added to calculate 3% of precipi tation that would have returned to a stream flow, using the Holistic Approach to Sustainable Water Managemen t in Northwest Douglas County study as a basis. As observed in Figure 3, the average precipitation varies by location, mostly dependent on altitude The 3% back to stream flow comparison is minimal compared to annual average rainfall.

PAGE 44

35 Figures 3.4 through 3. 7 are maps of the average annual precipitation in each of the four states and were obtained from the National Atlas of the United States of Amer ica (2015) precipitation average precipitation precipitation is precipitation is 11.86 inches. Arizona was th e only state out of the four states that had an area that received less than 5 inches of annual average precipitation.

PAGE 45

36 Figure 3.1

PAGE 46

37 Figure 3.2

PAGE 47

38 Figure 3.3

PAGE 48

39 Figure 3.4

PAGE 49

40 Figure 3.5

PAGE 50

41 Figure 3.6

PAGE 51

42 Figure 3.7

PAGE 52

43 CHAPTER IV FINDINGS & DATA ANALYSIS 4.1 Introduction The following analysis synthesizes the data collected through the most similar case study approach and is organized by state. of existing state water law a table summarizing existing rainwater harvest ing policies and two tables listing factors that either enable d or constrain ed rainwater harvesting from the newspaper analysis and professional interviews Imbedded within the two tables that cite findings from the newspaper and professional interviews are common themes shown in parentheticals after each statement. Following each state ection findings are compared and contrasted between the four state s with a policy comparison and synthesi s of themes previously identified within the parentheticals A table citing all newspaper articles used, along with a summary for each article is li sted in the Appendix. 4 2 Arizona 4. 2 .1 Arizona Water Law Arizona water law states: canyon (Kwasniak, 2012 p.6 ). In other words, until water from rain, snow, swamps or springs merges into a flowing source, the water is not subject to prior appropriation. The state of Arizona encourages private capture of rainwater and emphasizes water reuse and avoiding water wasting practices

PAGE 53

44 4. 2 .2 Arizona Policies Arizona has been cited as having progressive rainwater harvesting policies, with Tucson leading the way as a shining example (Cummings 2013 ). Beginning in 2006, the state of Arizona offered an incentive in the form of a credit for installing water conservation systems, listing rainwater harvesting as one of these systems. In 2012, two other bills were passed by the State of Arizona House of Representatives leading the way for a definition of rainwater harvesting and allowing cities or towns to implement Both Tucson and Flagstaff, Arizona implemented mandates for rainwater harv esting on new development.

PAGE 54

45 Table 4.1: Arizona Policy Summary Policy Passed by Year New or Revision Summary 43 1090.01: Credit for water conservation systems; definition State of Arizona House of Representatives Forty seventh Legislature Second Regular Session 2006 2006 Amending Section 43 1090.01, Arizona revised statutes; relating to individual income tax credits This legislation offers an incentive for taxpayers to install a water conservation system. C redit is equal to 25% of the cost of the syst em, up to $1,000 per dwelling. Reimbursements from the state are limited to $250,000 in total. If the state of Arizona receives requests which exceed $250,000 for a calendar year, they will deny subsequent applications. L egislation defined a tion or a series of components or mechanisms that are designed to provide for the collection of rainwater or residential graywater. Water conservation system includes a system that is capable of storing rainwater or residential graywa ter for future use and reusing the collected water for the same

PAGE 55

46 Table 4.1: Arizona Policy Summary Continued Chapter 95 House Bill 2363: An Act Establishing the Joint Legislative Study Committee on Macro Harvested Water State of Arizona House of Representatives Fiftieth Legislature Second Regular Session 2012 and approved by the Governor on 3/27/2012 2012 New The committee set up by the bill will propose a definition of macro harvested water, study, analyze and evaluate issue aris ing from the collection and recovery of macro harvested water (data on surface water, rainwater harvesting, methodology costs and benefits, impact on water rights, downstream users, and groundwater management), review administrative rules and guidelines in active management areas. The findings will be reported to the governor of Arizona, president of the Arizona Senate and Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives. Chapter 230 House Bill 2830: An Act Adding Section 9 499.16: Energy and water savings accounts State of Arizona House of Representatives Fiftieth Legislature Second Regular Session 2012. Approved by Governor 04/10/2012. 2012 New (Section 9 499.16) The bill allows cities or towns to establish an energy and water savings account to pool capital investment funds for projects in public facilities. An "energy cost savings measure" is a training program of facility designed to reduce energy consumption and i ncludes rainwater catchment systems. ORDINANC E NO. 2012 03 City of Flagstaff, Arizona on 04/03/2012 2012 New The ordinance states the city of Flagstaff wishes to adopt Rainwater Harvesting as part of the requirements of their stormwater management plan. The ordinance states that rainwater harvesting is required on new single family residential and non single family residential developments.

PAGE 56

47 Table 4.1: Arizona Policy Summary Continued Ordinance No. 10597 City of Tucson was passed on 10/14/2008 2008 New The ordinance states that new commercial construction must meet 50% of their landscape demand by using rainwater harvesting. The 50% requirement can be obtained by either using active or passive rainwater harvesting methods. 4.2 3 Arizona Newspaper Enable/Constrain Table For Arizona, the following themes summarized in Table 4.2, were identified from the newspaper articles on factors that either enabled or constrained rainwater harvesting practices and polic ies Themes identified in Arizona that ena bled rainwater harvesting included climate variability (drought), having a formal policy in place, incentives such as rebates, political support, savings from water being conserved, technical ease of use and decreased impact on water supply. Themes identi fied in Arizona that constrained rainwater harvesting included cost relating to installing systems and political opposition.

PAGE 57

48 Table 4.2 Arizona Newspaper Enabling or Constraining Themes Enable Constrain Rainwater harvesting ordinances for new residential master planned communities, multi family housing and commercial/industrial projects. ( Formal Policy) Costs of installing cisterns and logistics of burying cisterns for residents are cited as constraints. (Cost ) Storage tanks do not n eed to be installed underground. (Technical) Opposition stating that rainwater harvesting policies only looks at conservation from one perspective. (Political Opposition) Focus on water conservation and alternative water sources for the future. (Water S upply) Cost of rainwater harvesting systems is too high. (Cost ) Builders see the cost of rainwater harvesting systems as a benefit because water is being conserved. ( Savings) Builders see the cost of rainwater harvesting systems as too expensive. (Cost ) Citizen advisory group, multiple council meetings, input from the sustainability and water commissions ( Political Support) Mayor supportive and enabling of rainwater harvesting. ( Political Support) Tax incentives and rebates. (Incentive) Strain on water supplies during summer months when people are watering their lawns. (Water Supply) Drought. (Climate Variability) 4. 2 .4 Arizona Interview Enable/Constrain Table For Arizona, the following themes Summarized in Table 4.3, were identified from the professional interviews on factors that either enabled or constrained rainwater harvesting practices and polic ies Themes identified that enabled rainwater harvesting included a progressive minded political culture, incentives su ch as rebates, political support, pricing of water being on an escalating scale, savings from water being conserved, stormwater management and decreased impact on water supply. Themes identified that constrained rainwater harvesting included cost relating to installing

PAGE 58

49 systems a restrictive minded political culture, political opposition and prior appropriation Table 4.3 Arizona Interview Enabling or Constraining Themes Enable Constrain Rebates. (Incentive) Prior appropriation. (Prior Appropriation) Using rainwater harvesting to help mitigate stormwater management. (Stormwater Management) Political barriers values of people holding city council seats. (Political Opposition) Developers see benefit and cost savings. (Savings) Push back from develo pers. (Political Opposition) Ability to bring all stakeholders together. (Political Support) Inability to bring all stakeholders together. (Political Opposition) Progressive culture. ( Political Culture) Culture (restrictive). ( Political Culture) Wa ter is priced on an escalating pay scale, often driving conservation behavior. (Pricing of Water) Cost of water is too low. (Cost) Water is going to become increasingly more expensive and scarcer in the future. (Water Supply) Cost of rainwater harvesting systems is too high. (Cost) Individuals would prefer to use native landscapes over installing rainwater harvesting. ( Political Culture) 4.3 Colorado 4.4.1 Colorado Water Law Initially in Colorado, adjudication of water focused on only agricultur al uses of water (Hobbs, 2013). In 1951, the notion of tributary water versus non tributary water not only are physical tributaries tributary waters, so are the rains and snowfall on the s urface, the springs which issue from ear, and all groundwater that fi 2012 p. 7 ). In 1963, the Colorado Water Statute was passed confirming tributary waters are owned by the state and subject to appropriation. Current state law now includes environmental and recreational use (Hobbs, 2013) as well as all flowing water, and water suspended in the atmosphere (Cummings, 2013). This designation of precipitation is

PAGE 59

50 important for rainwater harvesting policy because no w precipitation is considered property of the state and already appropriated, causing many roadblocks for rainwater harvesting policy. Historically, rainwater harvesting in Colorado has faced strict regulation because of the prior appropriation doctrine r med by case law (Hobbs, 2013). Colorado views rainwater similarly and classifies it as tributary water, making rainwater subject to prior appropriation law (Kwasniak, 2012). 4.3 .2 Colorado Policies Within the la st five years, two pieces of legislation have passed in Colorado loosening restrictions on rainwater harvesting. The first was Senate Bill 09 080. SB 09 080 (2009) amended water law pertaining to rainwater harvesting for domestic use in households with w ells that are not connected to municipal water supplies. The second piece of legislation was House Bill 09 1129 (2009), which authorized 10 pilot projects for rainwater harvesting systems in new developments across Colorado. One major catalyst to the two recent pieces of legislation in Colorado was a study performed in Douglass County entitled: Holistic Approach to Sustainable Water Management in Northwest Douglas County. The study brought together multiple stakeholders throu ghout the Denver metro area. The study focused on two water conservation management strategies: precipitation harvesting and efficient landscaping practices. The study found that on an undeveloped land site, precipitation returned to groundwater and sur face water was 0% in a dry year, 3% in an average year and 15% in a wet year. 1 1 As of April 2015, House Bill 15 1259 was introduced in the first regular session of the 70 th General Assembly in the state of Colorado. The Act would allow residential rooftop collection using a max

PAGE 60

51 Through the policy analysis data collection, the following policies were identified for Colorado: Table 4.4 Colorado Policy Summary Table Policy Passed by Year New or Revision Summary S enate B ill 09 080 67th General Assembly 2009 New This bill amended water law pertaining to rainwater harvesting for domestic use in households with wells that are not connected to municipal water supplies. The bill also outlines funding for the program from the creation of the water resources ground water management cash fund which would monitor compliance with ro oftop precipitation capture laws. House Bill 09 1129 69th General Assembly 2009 New This bill authorized 10 pilot projects for rainwater harvesting systems in new developments across Colorado. The pilot projects were to be new residential or mixed use de velopments that collect rainwater from rooftops and impermeable surfaces for non potable uses. 4. 3 .3 Colorado Newspaper Enable/Constrain Table For Colorado, the following themes were identified from the newspaper articles on factors that either enabled or constrained rainwater harvesting practices and polic ies Themes identified in Colorado that enabled rainwater harvesting included having a of two rain barrels with at most a 100 gallon capacity (HB 15 1259). The bill passed the House in March 2015 and is now schedule for vote in the Se nate.

PAGE 61

52 formal policy in place and political support. Themes identified in Colorado that constrained rainwater harvesting included only prior appropriation Table 4.5 Colorado Newspaper Enabling or Constraining Themes Enable Constrain Rainwater harvesting could be allowed as rights. (Political Support) Expansive interpretation by the considered property of a water right holder. (Prior Appropriation) Pilot program. (Formal Policy) Prior appropriation. (Prior Appropriation) Rainwater harvested can be used so long as it would not have returned to a stream. (Political Support) Rainwater harvested can be used so long as it would not have returned to a stream. (Prior Appropriation) 4. 3 .4 Colorado Interview Enable/Constrain Table For Colorado, the following themes were identified from th e professional interviews on factors that either enabled or constrained rainwater harvesting practices and polic ies Themes identified in Colorado that enabled rainwater harvesting included a catalyst that led to policy, cultural beliefs, political suppor t and decreased impact on water supply. Themes identified in Colorado that constrained rainwater harvesting included cost relating to installing systems cultural opposition, prior appropriation and questions around the actual impact rainwater harvesting would have on water supply

PAGE 62

53 Table 4.6 Colorado Interview Enabling or Constraining Themes Enable Constrain Sterling ranch was a catalyst for the pilot program. (Catalyst) Cost of rainwater harvesting systems is too high. (Cost) The Colorado Water Conservation Board study provided significant scientific data to allow passage of the 10 pilot projects. (Political Support) Colorado Constitution: State has priority, and then water rights have priority. (Prior Appropriation) Governor supported. (Pol itical Support) Prior appropriation. (Prior Appropriation) Both sides of Congress supported the bills when they were posed. (Political Support) Municipal water users use far less water than agriculture. (Water Supply) Prior appropriation was a mistake ( Political Culture, Political Support ) A large amount of fighting in Colorado over water. ( Political Culture) Evaporation from reservoirs is a problem. (Water Supply) Colorado is a headwater state. (Water Supply, Prior Appropriation) No public ange r towards rainwater harvesting. ( Political Culture) The amount of water collected from rainwater harvesting is minimal. (Water Supply) 4. 4 New Mexico 4.4 .1 New Mexico Water Law Water law in New Mexico is a mix between the law reviewed in Arizona and Colorado. N ew M exico encourages water reuse and water conservation due to the arid climate. Conversely, New Mexico passed a law similar to Colorado claiming precipitation is public property. Similar to A rizona cities in N ew M exico have formed their own policies and New Mexico State has said that rainwater harvesting reduce the amount of runoff that would have occurred from the site in its natural, pre (Cummings, 2013 p. 8 ). 4.4 2 New Mexico Policies New Mexico policy re lated to rainwater harvesting dates back to 2002 when Santa Fe County passed an ordinance addressing water conservation. Then in 2003, Santa Fe passed another ordinance to require rainwater harvesting systems on all new commercial

PAGE 63

54 and residential developm ent. Following these two ordinances, the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer offered its support for rainwater harvesting although the language of the policy could be interpreted as contradictory Through the policy analysis data collection, the follo wing policies were identified for New Mexico

PAGE 64

55 Table 4.7 New Mexico Policy Summary Table Policy Passed by Year New or Revision Summary Ordinance no. 2002 13 : Santa Fe County 2002 New An Ordinance Addressing Water Conservation for all Residential and Commercial uses of Water within Santa Fe County Addresses water conservation and says it is imperative that they conserve water for future generations, fire protection, and agriculture. States water waste is damaging to the public health, safety and we lfare. Ordinance No. 2003 6 Santa Fe County 2003 Amended Ordinance 1996 10 to require rainwater catchment systems for all commercial and residential development. The policy requires rainwater catchment systems for development involving construction, alt eration or repair of one to four dwellings or the construction, alteration or repair of an accessory structure. Policy is in reference to water being used for landscape purposes. Outlines requirements on cistern size and how much water should be collecte d. New Mexico Office of the State Engineer Rainwater/Sn owmelt Harvesting Policy New Mexico Office of State Engineer 2004 New The policy explains that the New Mexico Office of State Engineer supports efficient use of water resources and encourages harvesti ng, collection and use of rainwater from residential and commercial roof surfaces. States that Collection of rainwater from roofs should not reduce the amount of runoff that would have occurred from the site in its natural, pre development s t ate and not b e appropriated for any other uses.

PAGE 65

56 4.4 3 New Mexico Newspaper Enable/Constrain Table For New Mexico, the following themes were identified from the newspaper articles on factors that either enabled or constrained rainwater harvesting practices and policies Themes identified in New Mexico that enabled rainwater harvesting included climate variability (drought), a supportive political culture, having a formal policy in place, inc entives such as rebates and decreased impact on water su pply. Themes identified in New Mexico that constrained rainwater harvesting included cost relating to installing systems lack of sufficient incentives and political op position. Table 4.8 New Mexico Newspaper Enabling or Constraining Themes Enable Constr ain State of New Mexico ruling. (Formal Policy) Some officials not wanting to look at regulation. (Political Opposition) Ordinance is written loosely to allow for interpretation. (Formal Policy) Rebate was only on first rain barrel so people turned to other rebates. (Cost/Incentives) Culture. ( Political Culture) Developers were against rainwater harvesting. (Political Opposition) Collected water can be used in anyway approved by the state. (Formal Policy) New developments must have rainwater ha rvesting. (Formal Policy) Severe drought, limited water supplies. (Climate Variability, Water Supply) Rebate program. (Incentives) 4.4 4 New Mexico Interview Enable/Constrain Table For New Mexico, the following themes were identified from the professional interviews on factors that either enabled or constrained rainwater harvesting practices and policies Themes identified in New Mexico that enabled rainwater harvesting included climate variability (drought), a supportive political c ulture, incentives such as free rain barrels and stormwater management. Themes identified in New Mexico that constrained rainwater harvesting included cost relating to installing systems aging infrastructure

PAGE 66

57 potential storm water management issues, poli tical opposition, the price of water being very low and prior appropriation Table 4.9 New Mexico Interview Enabling or Constraining Themes Enable Constrain Drought. New Mexico was operating in crisis mode. (Climate Variability) Cost of rainwater harvesting systems is too high. (Cost ) Incentives to provide people with rain barrels. (Incentives) Concern with connecting to potable water infrastructure. (Stormwater Management) Stormwater management. (Stormwater Management) Infrastructure in Santa Fe is very old. (Stormwater Management) Public believes rainwater harvesting makes common sense. ( Political Culture) The way in which water is priced. ( Pricing of Water ) Prior appropriation. (Prior Appropriation) Political process. (Politic al Opposition) 4.5 Utah 4.5 .1 Utah Water Law Water law relating to the harvesting of rainwater in Utah is very similar to the law in Colorado. Utah follows the prior appropriation doctrine very strictly saying that sources of a stream, whether visible or invisible, and water that runs on the ground are property of the public (Cummings, 2013). One difference in Utah interpretation of prior appropriation is that citizens could use rainwater as long as it does not interfere with heir water rights 4.5 .2 Utah Policies In Utah, two pieces of legislation have been passed at the state level. First, in 2010, a policy was passed allowing individuals to harvest rainwater on their property. In 2013, the 2010 bill was amended to prohibit the Utah State Engineer from forcing i ndividuals harvesting rainwater to obtain a water right. Through the policy analysis data collection, the fol lowing policies were identified for Utah :

PAGE 67

58 Table 4.10 Utah Policy Summary Table Policy Passed by Year New or Revision Summary Senate Bill 32 code 73 3 1.5 : Capture and storage of precipitation 2010 New The policy says that any person may directly capture and store precipitation on a parcel leased or owned and place the water captured in a storage container. The policy allowed individua ls to store up to 2,500 gallons of water with a permit or have two containers holding less than 100 gallons without a permit. Additionally, Storage container must be installed according to the State Construction Code or an approved code under Title 15A, S tate Construction and Fire Codes Act. House Bill 36 2013 General Session 2013 Amendment House Bill 36 was an amendment to Senate Bill 32 referenced above. The change made under House engineer from commencing an enforcement ac tion under certain circumstances and provides for the collection and use of precipitation without obtaining a water right in certain 4.5 .3 Utah Newspaper Enable/Constrain Table For Utah, the following themes were identified from the newspa per articles on factors that either enabled or constrained rainwater harvesting practices and policies Themes identified in Utah that enabled rainwater harvesting included technical ease of

PAGE 68

59 use and supportive political culture. Themes identified in Utah that constrained rainwater harvesting inc luded only prior appropriation. Table 4.11 Utah Newspaper Enabling or Constraining Themes Enable Constrain Simplicity involved with collection of rainwater. (Technical) Prior appropriation. (Prior Appropriation) Everyone wants to do green building and rainwater harvesting helps obtain LEED certification. ( Political Culture) It is a habitual practice that has been occurring for years. ( Political Culture) 4. 5 .4 Utah Interview Enable/Constrain T able For Utah the following themes were identified from the professional interviews on factors that either enabled or constrained rainwater harvesting practices and policies Themes identified in Utah that enabled rainwater harvesting included a catalyst that led to policy, supportive political culture, incentives such as free rain barrels, political support and public health solutions from the use of cisterns. Themes identi fied in Utah that constrained rainwater harvesting included cost relating to installing systems concerns over public health impacts and prior appropriation

PAGE 69

60 Table 4.12 Utah Interview Enabling or Constraining Themes Enable Constrain Cistern below grou nd to deal with mosquito abatement. (Public Health) Public health concern: mosquitos. (Public Health) The Miller Toyota dealership wanting to use rainwater harvesting in order to obtain LEED certification. (Catalyst, Political Culture) Concern over potable and non potable water contamination. (Public Health) Negative media attention against the state do rainwater harvesting. (Support) Prior appropriation. (Prior Appropriation) Public interest. ( Politica l Culture) Cost of rainwater harvesting systems is too high. (Cost) Incentives, like providing rain barrels. (Incentives) State law has not caught up with modern time. (Prior Appropriation) Support from members state legislature. (Political Support) Strong environmentally focused culture. ( Political Culture) 4.6 State Comparison The following sections provide and in depth look at reoccurring themes that either enabled or constrained rainwater harvesting within Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah. Some themes were common in all four states, while others were common between two or three states. 4.6 .1 Policy Comparison Fro m the policy analysis, it was found that Arizona and New Mexico have the most policies related to rainwater harvesting and both Colorado and Utah have the least. Arizona, Colorado and Utah all had policy forma tion begin at the state level, while New policies began in Santa Fe C ounty. Policies in New Mexico dated back the furthest to 2002, Arizona to 2006, Colorado to 2009 and Utah to 2010.

PAGE 70

61 The Arizona policy from 2006 offered i ncentives for people to install rainwater harvesting systems, up to $1,000 per dwelling. Although not listed in a formal policy, New Mexico also currently offers rebates for rainwater harvesting barrels and cisterns in Albuquerque Bern alillo County ( ABCwua.org 2015). No information was found about existing incentive programs in either Colorado or Utah. Also in Arizona, a bill was passed by the State of Arizona House of Representatives which incentivized cities and towns to establish a fund to help implement rainwater harvesting for projects in public facilities. As noted in the literature review, incentives such as rebates and subsidies were used as potential enablers for rainwater harvesting practices along with being included in po licies Both Arizona and New Mexico have passed policies mandating the use of rainwater harvesting in new development In New Mexico, Santa Fe Ordinance No. 2003 6 was passed requiring rainwater harvesting systems on all new residential and commercial d evelopment. In Arizona, both the City of Flagstaff and City of Tucson now require rainwater harvesting. Flagstaff requires rainwater harvesting for both new single family residential and non single family residential developments. The ordinance passed i n Tucson requires new commercial construction to cover 50% of their landscape water needs from harvested rain water. No mandates for rainwater harvesting were identified in either Colorado or Utah. The inclusion of mandates also appeared in the literatur e on rainwater harvesting as an essential part of policy in the U.S. Virgin Islands Several policies had broad implications across municipalities and cited stormwater management, public health concerns and the relationship with the State Engineer Office. Ordinance No. 2012 03 from the City of Flagstaff cited the main reason

PAGE 71

62 for passing the ordinance was for stormwater management. Santa Fe County Ordinance 2002 13 addressed water conservation and cited fire protection needs, agricul ture and public health concerns related to stormwater management. Both New Mexico and Utah had policies related to their Office of State Engineers. Although the policy from the New seems contradictory by encouraging rainwat er harvesting and protecting appropriated water rights the State Engineer Office in New Mexico fully encourages rainwater harvesting Finally Engineer from requiring a permit for rainwater harvesting. 4.6 .2 Theme s Enabling or Constraining Rainwater Harvesting Common t hemes identified in the newspaper and interview analysis wh ich either enabled or constrained rainwater harvesting are listed in T able 4.13 below a long with which state identified with each theme.

PAGE 72

63 Table 4.13 Themes Enabling or Constraining Rainwater Harvesting Common Themes Enable Constrain Catalyst Colorado, Utah Climate Variability Arizona, New Mexico Cost Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah Formal Policy Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico Incentives Arizona, New Mexico, Utah New Mexico Political Culture Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah Arizona, Colorado Political Opposition Arizona, New Mexico Political Support Arizona, Colorado, Utah Pricing of Water Arizona New Mexico Prior Appropriation Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah Public Health Utah Utah Savings Arizona Stormwater Management Arizona, New Mexico Technical Arizona, Utah Water Supply Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico Colorado When interpreting the results from this table, an extreme enabling or constraining factor is considered 100%, or four states; a major factor is considered 25% to 75% or two to three states ; and a minor factor is 25% or under, or one state. Only one common theme enabling rainwater harvesting appeared in all four states: the political culture of people in a given area. Two common themes were identified as constraining rainwater harvesting: the cost of rainwater harvesting systems and prior appropriation wa ter law. Thinking back to the policy change literature from the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the political culture of individuals may represent deep core beliefs. Although deep core beliefs are the hardest to change, the fact that political culture was cited as enabling

PAGE 73

64 rainwater harvesting in all four states might signify why rainwater harvesting practices and policies have gained popularity in these states. The major enabling factors for rainwater harvesting included a catalyst for change (Sterling Ranch in Colorado and Miller Toyota in Utah ) climate variability (drought), having a formal policy in place, the presence of incentives such as rebates, political support, stormwater management, rainwater harvesting being technically easy, and concerns o ver future water availability or desire for conservation. Minor factors enabling rainwater harvesting were the pricing of water being on an escalating scale, forcing water conservation, public health concerns over mosquito abatement and savings realized f rom water conservation. The major constraining factors of rainwater harvesting were political culture and political opposition. The minor constraining factors were incentives not providing enough monetary support, the price of water being too low, public health concerns related non potable water mosquitoes and water supply concerns. Both the enabling and constraining factors identified in this research confirm factors explored in the literature reviewed From the foreign case studies, factors enabling rainwater harvesting practices and policies included monetary incentives being comfortable with the technical aspects of rainwater harvesting and water conservation. The factors constraining rainwater harvesting practices and polices highlighted concerns about cost of rainwater harvesting systems, public health fears and political opposition. It also appears that several external perturbations occurred including a catalyst for change description of changing secondary core beliefs and leading to policy change

PAGE 74

65 4.6 .3 Sterling Ranch and Miller Toyota Based on the literature reviewed and findings presented above, Arizona and New Mexico have better established and further reaching rainwater harvesti ng policies ; Colorado and Utah are in the beginning stages of rainwater harvesting policy. Colorado and Utah appear to have a catalyst forcing the rainwater harvesting issue with Sterling Ranch and Miller Toyota. Sterling Ranch in Colorado is a pilot proj ect started as a result of House Bill 09 1129 for a new, sustainable development in Douglas County. When Sterling Ranch was proposed, the planners knew access to water would be a problem and they researched other areas in the United St ates, specifically N ew Mexico for a possible solution The planners of Sterling Ranch knew rainwater harvesting was not l egal in Colorado and needed more information about the actual impacts of rainwater harvesting, leading to the Douglass County study on a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Water Management ( P ersonal communication, September 5, 2014 & October 8, 2014) In Utah, a similar story propelling rainwater harvesting policy occurred with the Miller Toyota dealership in Salt Lake City. The owner of Miller Toyota Mark Miller, was remodeling his dealership and wanted to obtain a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification. Part of the LEED Certification may be obtai ned by water conservation and Miller wanted to use rainwater harvesting. After lear ning rainwater harvesting was illegal in Utah, Miller worked with the Salt Lake City government and pushed the state legislature on the issue of rainwater harvesting. Eventually Miller was able to use rainwater harvesting and Senate Bill 32 was passed ( P e rsonal communication, October 28, 2014 & November 3, 2014).

PAGE 75

66 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS The findings from the research show many similarities between Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah on what factors either enable d or constrain ed rainwater harvesting policy. The most prominent enabler of rainwater harvesting is political culture of individuals and the two biggest barriers are the cost of rainwater harvesting systems and prior appropriation. The following discussion will speculate on the f indings of the thesis, provide advice for municipalities who wish to implement rainwater harvesting and provide forward thinking on the future of rainwater harvesting. Unlike Colorado and Utah, Arizona and New Mexico have been able to pass progressive ra inwater and stormwater harvesting regulations, mostly on a local level. One reason that Arizona and New Mexico may have more robust rainwater harvesting policy could be their climate is more arid and they have faced ha rsher drought in recent years. The i mpact of climate variability may have impacted the political culture of Arizona and New Mexico or perhaps the political culture of individuals in these states has always leaned towards water co nservation due to the arid climate. When applying knowledge fr om the Advocacy Coalition Framework, it is also possible more substantial policy change was witnessed in Arizona and New Mexico because of the external perturbation, specifically drought in addition to the more arid climates in the two states Another interesting connection to what factors enable rainwater harvesting is the presences of incentives in policies. In both Arizona and New Mexico, incentive s were included in policies to encourage rainwater harvesting practices P olicies in both Colo rado and Utah did not include incentives In the future, it will be important for

PAGE 76

67 policymakers to address the barrier of cost for rainwater harvesting, which was cited as a barrier in both the literature re viewed and as a finding in this research. Inclus ion of incentives in policies related to rainwater harvesting is highly recommended. Specific recommendations for policymakers in each of the four states differ due to the existing policies in these states as well as differences in geography and availabl e water. While all four states are facing population growth predictions, Arizona and New Mexico may need to plan for the additional complexity of a limited availab ility of surface water. As populations grow in Arizona and New Mexico cities, they will inc rease urban demand for water The increased demand for water, coupled with the limited availability of water in Arizona and New Mexico, could cause problems for these states as they attempt to meet the growing demands. Also, the competition for a limited amount of water in Arizona and New Mexico could be why these states have more active rainwater harvesting policies. In Colorado and Utah, po licy formation has just begun While Colorado and Utah have more available water resources than Arizona and New Mexico, Colorado and Utah are facing higher population growth than both Arizona and New Mexico In the future, it will be important for Colorado and Utah to learn from the rainwater harvesting policy formation process in Arizona and New Mexico Colorado and Utah should attempt to i mp l ement bolder rainwater harvesting policies as population and demand for water increase From the data collected, specifically responses from interviewees, prior appropriation was referenced in Colora do more than any other state Two possible reasons exist for the stricter regulation in Colorado : 1) Colorado is a headwater state and

PAGE 77

68 2) the different process for administering prior appropriation rights in Colorado The implications of being a headwater state is that Colorad o must constantly be mindful of downstream users, because if downstream users are affected, the state could be sued (Personal communication, November 11, 2014) Also, t he way Colorado administers prior appropriation water rights is different than any othe r western states. According to Wilkinson (1992), in order to manage water resources, all western states except Colorado set up agencies to administer prior appropriation water rights In Colorado, the power lies in the courts for matters dealing with wa ter rights. This distinction in the administration of water rights is important because it gives Colorado courts authorit y over all water usage issues instead of having a centralized water administration ag ency. In Colorado, the Division of Water Resourc es and State Engineers must work to administer water usage without being granted the right to implement regulati ons (Water.State.CO.US, 2015). The different treatment of water law in Colorado is interesting and is perhaps why rainwater harvesting practic es and policies are restrictive in this state From the literature reviewed, while water law was cited as a potential barrier, the added complexity of how water is administered in Colorado explains another barrier to rainwater harvesting practices and pol ic ies not previously cited. Also in Colorado, p rior appropriation might be considered a deep core belief, both one that appears in the political culture of a given area as well as being the law and leading to increased barriers when introducing rainwater harvesting practices and policies. Similar to prior appropriation, c ost of rainwater harvesting systems was referenced as a barrier in all four states and recognized in the literature from the nation

PAGE 78

69 states on rainwater harvesting While some interviewees from some states spoke to the cost benefit of rainwater harvesting in the long term, the expense of rainwater harvesting systems for an individual was still cited as a barrier. A solution to the cost impediment of rainwater harvest ing could be for local municipalities to subsidize rainwater harvesting by offering incentives such as rebates or tax credits. The use of incentives for rainwater harvesting proved to be an enabler to rainwater harvesting in both the nation state examples and from the da ta collected in this research ; however, the specific incentive instrument differed. While offering rebates and tax credits provides a short term solution to the cost impediment of rainwater harvesting systems, it may also be important to think about long term ideas for rainwater harvesting while taking into account the urban and rural implications. As discussed previously, the increase of residents in urban areas has caused a shift in water rights away from agriculture. Also, owners of a lready appropriated water are concerned about the impact rainwater harvesting would have on their water right. Another issue faced by both urban users and agricultural users is w ater conservation T o urban users water conservation could mean using less potable water and turning to rainwater harvesting for non potable outdoor uses. For agricultural users, conservation could mean moving away from flood irrigation to more efficient forms of irrigation such as pipe irrigation systems or sprinkler systems. A possibl e collaborative solution in order to increase conservation for both urban and agriculture users as well as address some of the concerns over water rights, could be to allow rainwater harvesting in urban areas in exchange for issuing a state wate r bond that would provide funding for agricultural users to install more efficient irrigation systems.

PAGE 79

70 Managing the c hallenges of infrastructure in terms of installing rainwater harvesting and s tormwater management were another reoccurring theme in the re search Technological challenges associated with rainwater harvesting systems were also apparent in the policies reviewed from nation states Several of the rainwater harvesting policies require d rainwater harvesting systems on new construction, possibly because installing a retrofitted system on an existing building requires more work and money. Many interviewees pointed to one of the challenges of stormwater management being old water infrastructure in localities and welcomed rainwater harvesting as a solution because systems could be installed without being included in the existing infrastructure The policy implemented by New Mexico Office of State Engineer states that rainwater harvesting can help manage runoff that currently impacts existing infras tructure For policymakers implementing rainwater harvesting policies, it is important to plan for the potential challenges of existing infrastructure and how rainwater harvesting may help mitigate those challenges. Many interviewees, especially in Col orado, called out prior appropriation as a mistake or an antiquated way of looking at water an idea that is not keeping up with modern times. As we look to the future, it might be necessary to re examine how prior appropriation is applied to issues surro unding water conservation in municipalities especially as increases of migration into urban areas is realized T he research presented and information gathered from interviewees, explained the minimal impact rainwater harvesting might have on already ap propriated water. A potential way to change the application of prior appropriation related to rainwater harvesting was attempted in

PAGE 80

71 Arizona ppropria ted accordingly (Cummings 2013). In the future it may be helpful to think of strategies other than rainwater harvesting for conserving water in municipalities. Examples where o ther potential water conservation techniques could be useful include domestic e xterior uses such as golf courses, swimming pools and urban landscape irrigation (Brodahl & Shutkin, 2011). A benefit to agriculture may be realized if municipalities focus on urban conservation by possibly reducing the need for municipalities to obtain water rights from agriculture Turning back to the issue of migration into urban areas and l ooking at the population increases for each state that rang ed from 1.3% to 5.0% from the years of 2010 to 2013 it may be essential to re examin e how w ater is supplied, used and managed in the western United States. M any interviewees cited the problem of potable water being used for outdoor sources, for example, watering landscaping with water that has been treated for drinking. Rainwater harvesting co uld provide an excellent solution for outdoor uses that do not require potable water, and perhaps reduce cost associated with treating water. Another approach to water conservation management that was mentioned by several interviewees is looking at wate r conservation as a holistic approach. Water use in the W est is multiplex including over 70% of water being used for agriculture, water waste from evaporation, inefficient landscape irrigation and use of non native plants While rainwater harvesting is a n important part of the water conservation toolkit, it is not the solution for water conservation as a whole and exploring other water conservation

PAGE 81

72 techniques may be necessary as the western United States realizes the impacts of the changing climate Looking towards the future of rainwater harvesting, several important considerations must be addressed. First, a reevaluation of the application of prior appropriation relating to rainwater harvesting should be completed in order to understand if the curr ent water law is meeting the needs of current society. Second, rainwater harvesting policy should focus on new construction requirements instead of attempting to retrofit old buildings or houses. Policymakers should also understand the existing water inf rastructure and the potential interactions of rainwater harvesting practices on these systems. Third, incentives such as rebates or tax credits should be included in all rainwater harvesting policy. Finally long term solutions for conservation should be implemented, specifically solutions that address competing demands on water resources between urban and rural users.

PAGE 82

73 CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION In the w estern United States, water is a scarce resource (Cummings 2013). As population increases steadily, the demand for water is increasing. The growing impact of water scarcity has been realized through water restrictions, drought, climate change, and over appropriated streams (Hobbs, 2013). As the w estern United States faces growing urbanization and populati on, new techniques and technologies must be created in order to protect natural resources while providing safe water for consumption. According to Hobbs (2013), ected to double over the next fifty years and an actual not specul ative need for new water appropriates and water transfers will exist The future will call for development and use of water under interstate agreements and increased water conservation Erratic flood, drought, and snowpack from climate variability will require new management techniques for infrastructure. While the a reexamination of how the western United States views water conservation is necessary, rainwater harvesting is prime for being a n essential part of the water conservation toolkit. Rainwater harvesting practices and policy can be supported by the need to address impacts from climate variability, political culture of individuals, formal policy, incentives, political support, stormwater management and allowing less strain on water supp ly. The major barriers rainwater harvesting faces are the cost of systems, political opposition and prior appropriation. As issues related to water conservation are brought to the forefront and individuals witness the increasing impacts that climate varia bility and increased migration into urban areas plac ing strain on water supply, a cultural shift towards a more

PAGE 83

74 holistic water conservation approach is necessary. I n looking to the future, it is essential to implement water conservation strategies as an offensive measure rather than reactionary measure Rainwater harvesting should be explored as an integral pie ce of the holistic approach needed for water conservation.

PAGE 84

75 REFERENCES 43 1090.01: Credit for water conservation systems; definition, State of A rizona House of Representatives Forty seventh Legislature Second Regular Session, 2006. ABCwua.org: Outdoor Rebates (2015). ABCwua.org. Retrieved February 11, 2015 from http://www.abcwua.org/Outdoor_Rebates.aspx Beaujon, D. (2009) Rainwater Harvesting in Colorado. Issue Brief: Colorado Legislative Council Staff, 09 02. Doctrine: Proper ty Rights and Takings, 22 Fordham Environmental Law Review. 159. (LexisNexis 2011). Brodahl, M. & Shutkin, W. (2011). Exactly the Right Amount: Municipal Water Efficiency, Population Growth, and Climate Change, 14 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 337. ( LexisNe xis 2011). Burnett M. & Davis C. (2002). Getting out the Cut: Politics and National Forest Timber Harvests, 1960 1995. Administration and Society, 34 (202), 201 228. Cbs.state.or.us: Rainwater Harvesting Oregon Smart Guide (2015). Cbs.state.or.us. Retr ieved January 17, 2015 from http://www.cbs.state.or.us/bcd/pdf/smart_guides.html Chapter 95 House Bill 2363: An Act Establishing the Joint Legislative Study Committee on Macro Harvested Water, State of Arizona House of Representatives Fiftieth Legislature Second Regular Session, 2012.

PAGE 85

76 Chapter 230 House Bill 2830: An Act Adding Section 9 499.16: Energy and water savings accounts, State of Arizona House of Representatives Fiftieth Legislat ure Second Regular Session, 2012. Cummings, K. (2013). Adapting to Water Scarcity: A Comparative Analysis of Water Harvesting Regulation in the Four Corner States, 27 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 593. (LexisNexis 2013). Dinse, K. (2011). Climate Variability and Climate Change: What is the Difference?, Michigan Sea Grant,2011. Dekay, M. & O'Brien, M. (2001). Gray City, Green City. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, Summer, 19 27. EPA.org: WaterSense (2013). EPA.org. Retrieved November 21, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/watersense/our_water/tomorrow_beyond.html December 30, 2014 from http://www.epa.gov/greeningepa/water/best_practices.htm Euzen, A. & Morehouse, B. (2011). Water: What Values? Policy and Society, 30, 237 247. Fricano, R. J. & Grass, A. K. (2014). Evaluating American Rainwater Harvesting Policy: A Case Study of Three U.S. Cities. Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(6), 133 149. Gomes, U. A. F., Heller, L., & Pena, J. L. (2012). A National Program for Large Scale Rainwater Harvesting: An Individual or Pub lic Responsibility. Water Resource Manager, 26, 2703 2714.

PAGE 86

77 Kwasniak, A. J. (2012). Inflating and Deflating: Courts and State/Crown Ownership and Management of Water, 33 Pub. Land & Resource L. Rev. 95. (LexisNexis 2013). Hobbs, G. J. (Jr.). (2013). R eviving the Public Ownership, Anti speculation, and Beneficial Use Moorings of Prior Appropriation Water Law, 84 U. Colo. L. Rev. 97. (LexisNexis 2013). House Bill 36, 2013 General Session, 2013. House Bill 09 1129, Sixty Ninth General Assembly, 2009. Hou se Bill 15 1259, Seventieth General Assembly, 2015. Li, Z., Boyle, F., & Reynolds, A. (2010). Rainwater harvesting and greywater treatment systems for domestic application in Ireland. Desalination, 260, 1 8. Metodi, S. (2012). The Advocacy Coalition Fr amework in natural resource policy studies Recent experiences and further prospects. Forest policy and economics, 16 15 64. Nationalatlas.gov: The National Atlas of the United States of America (2015). Nationalatlast.gov. Retrieved April 20, 2015 from http://nationalmap.gov/small_scale/printable/climatemap.html NCSL.org: State Rainwater Harvesting Statues, Programs and Legislation (2013). Ncsl.org. Retrieved October 7, 2013 from http://www.ncsl.org/issues research/env res/rainwater harvesting.aspx New Mexico Office of the State Engineer Rainwater/Snowmelt Harvesting Policy, 2004. Niederberger, A. A. (2005). Science for climate change policy making: applying theory to practice to enhance effectiveness. Science & public policy, 32 (1), 2 16.

PAGE 87

78 Ordinance no. 2002 13: An Ordinance Addressing Water Conservation for all Residential and Commercial uses of Water within Santa Fe County, 2002. Ordinance No. 2012 03, City of Flagstaff, Arizona, 2012. Ordinance No. 10597, City of Tucson, 2008. Santa Fe County Ordinance No. 2003 6, 2003. S.B. 32 code 73 3 1.5. Capture and storage of precipitation, Utah, 2010 Ryan, A. M., Splash, C. L., & Measham, T. G. (2009). Socio economic and psychological predictors of domestic greywater and rainwater harvesting : Evidence from Australia. Journal of Hydrology, 379, 164 171. Sabatier, P. A. & Weible, C. M. (2007). Theo ries of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Senate Bill 09 080, Sixty Seventh General Assembly, 2009. Shanahan, E.A., McBeth, M. K., Hathaway, P. L., & Arnell, R. J. (2008). Conduit or contributor? The role of media in policy change the ory. Policy Sciences, 41, 115 138. Stark, T., & Pushard, D. (2008). The State of Rainwater Harvesting in the U.S. On Tap, Fall, 20 22. Steelman, T. A. (2010). Implementing innovation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. UCAR.edu Californi https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/perspective/10879/california dryin

PAGE 88

79 Villarreal, E. L., & Dixon, A. (2005). Analysis of a r ainwater harvesting system for domestic water supply in Riingdansen, Norrkoping, Sweden. Building and Environment, 40, 1174 1184. Ward, S., Butler, D. & Memon, F.A. (2008). A pilot study into attitudes towards and perceptions of rainwater harvesting in the UK. BHS 10 th National Hydrology Symposium, Centre for Water Systems, University of Exeter. Water.state.co.us: History of Water Rights (2015). Water.state.co.us. Retrieved March 18, 2015 from http://water.state.co.us/SURFACEWATER/SWRIGHTS/Pages/WRHi story.aspx Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., & McQueen, K. (2009). Themes and Variations: Taking Stock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework. The Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 121 140. Williams, A., Lansey, K., & Washburne, J. (2009). A dynamic simulatio n based on water resources education tool. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 471 482. Wilkinson, C. F. (1992). Crossing the Next Meridian: Land, Water, and the Future of the West. Washington, DC: Island Press.

PAGE 89

80 APPENDIX State: Document Title: Date: Name of Newspaper Summary Arizona: Council to new businesses: Collect that rain -or else: 01/25/11: The Arizona Daily Sun (Flagstaff) Article is about a stakeholder group that was tasked with providing recommendations for passive and active collection techniques for rainwater harvesting in new business construction. Cost of cistern rule of thumb = 50 cents per gallon installed above gro und. The stakeholder group is an oddity in council policy decisions for Flagstaff the Flagstaff council tried to use this approach because it is what Tucson did when they asked members of the development community to work with environmentalists to form the Tucson ordinance. Arizona: Flagstaff City Council Oks rainwater plan, 7 0: 04/05/12: The Arizona Daily Sun (Flagstaff) Passage of a rainwater harvesting ordinance in Flagstaff, AZ designed to reduce the amount of potable water used for landscape irrigation. "Seen as a compromise between conservationists, some of whom wanted existing buildings to be covered, and the local development community, which was leery of any new mandates." Arizona: Council delays decisions on rainwater rail crossings: 01/27/11: The Arizona Daily Sun (Flagstaff) Article talks about Flagstaff City Council deferring a decision on a proposal that cou ld lead to a new rainwater harvesting ordnance affecting new commercial construction and possibly homes too. The council couldn't come to agreement on the recommendations from the citizen advisory group. Council wants staff to write rainwater harvesting ordinance, but wants input from both the sustainability and water commissions first. Arizona: Rainwater proposal diluted: 04/03/12: The Arizona Daily Sun (Flagstaff) Flagstaff council set to vote on the rainwater harvesting ordinance. The policy was reco mmended by the citizen advisory group and offers developers two choices: plant native or drought resisted plants and guild an active rainwater harvesting system with a storage tank. The tank should capture an inch of rainfall from the roof or the anticip ated annual landscaping water demand.

PAGE 90

81 Arizona: Tucson passes nation's first rainwater harvesting ordinance for commercial properties: 10/16/08: Center for Biological Diversity New ordinance passed by Tucson that requires new developments to meet 50% of landscaping water requirements from rainwater. Arizona: Tucson set to require new commercial developments to harvest rainwater: 02/25/10: Cronkite News Tucson commercial development ordinance Arizona: Rainwater harvesting rebates possible for Tucsonans: 09/28/11: Arizona Daily Star $100K approved by City Council to precursor for rebate system. Opposing views as to how money should be spent. Arizona: Water harvesting a tasty deal for area: 01/12/09: Tucson Citizen Offers public tips on how to get involved in rainwater harvesting.

PAGE 91

82 Arizona: Tucson promotes rainy day plan: 07/06/09: dailyreporter.com About new Tucson rainwater harvesting law. Arizona: Not Up the Arizona faces potential water shortages, experts divided on solutions, th ough many remain optimistic : 05/15/14: Tucson Weekly Follow up article from a water conference. "conservation will not close the gap" Spillover effect again and argument that talking about shifting who uses water, It' s not like if we conserve more, we're going to use less. What's going to happen at that point is the people who conserve more will give it up to other users, and we'll end up using the same amount" English Colorado: Rainwater harvest subject of state s tudy: The project will look at how new developments combine rain, conservation.: 01/29/10: The Pueblo Chieftain Talks about the pilot study from HB1129. Took ideas from guidelines from other areas which already harvest rainwater. Guidelines are flexible Pilot projects will have to document amount of runoff from the site before development and then afterwards to understand how much conservation is happening. pilot study will be critical for future claims in water court for new developments." Colorado: Rain law wetting appetites : 08/05/09: The Denver Post Article highlights several individuals who live in rural areas that obtained a permit for harvesting rainwater. It shows the diversification that rainwater harvesting could be used for: cabin @ 12,000 feet, eco friendly adobe home, and earth ship Blatter says "I water my lawn with better quality drinking water than half the world has access to."

PAGE 92

83 Colorado: Greening up from the top down: 09/05/06: The Denver Post Story about how the EPA buildi ng in downtown Denver put in a green roof to help reduce the rainwater hitting the streets. Colorado: Can you own the rain?: 06/28/08: The Denver Post Article is pro rainwater harvesting and talks a lot about the history of CO water law, promotes rainwate r harvesting, and calls for the legal history to be abandoned. It also brings up the study done by Douglas County and the CWCB which found that on average 3% of precipitation returns to the natural stream. Highlights the need for a "new water ethic" whic h can be developed as individuals become closer to their source of water for their lawns or possibly non potable indoor uses by using collected rainwater. Colorado: New Colorado laws affect rainwater, health care: 06/29/09: The Denver Post Just talks about the up and coming rainwater law taking effect. Colorado: Douglas County development picked for rainwater recycling project: 07/22/10: The Denver Post Discusses the first approved Pilot project, Sterling Ranch, a 3,400 acre property in Dou glas County. They have already put up weather stations to measure rainfall and how much of it is absorbed versus flows off of the property. Development will take 20 years to complete and in the end be home to 31,000 people in 12,050 dwellings. 37% will be open space with hiking, biking and horseback riding, 33% will be housing, 30% for retail and office, schools, and sports village for the Colorado Rush soccer and Slammers baseball. Estimates half of the property's water needs can be addressed by rainwa ter harvesting.

PAGE 93

84 New Mexico: Rainwater an option for dry spring watering: 04/22/14: Ruidoso News (New Mexico) Background on rainwater harvesting from a legal, policy and technical level. Teacher at NM University said classes he teaches on rainwater harvesting have been gaining a lot of interest lately. The Planning Commission in Ruidoso is putting together recommendations for a land development ordinan ce which could include rainwater policy. Most rainwater collected now is used for landscape needs or other non potable solutions. Touches on how rainwater catchment isn't taking the water away from the streams, it is putting the collected rain to another use before it goes back into the stream anyway. Mentions benefits for stormwater management as well. PNM Foundation funded 2 projects in Ruidoso: on campus & at the new American Legion Post. New Mexico: Councilors may scrap rain barrel rebate: 09/24/0 8: The Santa Fe New Mexican Vote on continuing city funded rebate for rain barrels. Sant Fe wants to look at new and more innovative ways to promote water conservation. Rebate was only available on first barrel, conservation habits have changed and peop le would rather get a rebate for buying an HE washer. New Mexico: Reusing Raindrops: 07/25/09: ABQ Journal About the incr ease in rainwater harvesting t ies into changing water ethic. Details prices and rebates by sizes of rain bins. New Mexico: Bills Put Focus on Water Board Power: Builders Question Changes to Codes: 02/27/08: ABQ Journal Article questions how much authority the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority has; mostly questioned by the new Mexico Home Builders Association beca use the new requirements would significantly increase the cost of a new home to be built.

PAGE 94

85 New Mexico: Water Authority Repeals Rules: Board to Gather Comment on Conservation Measures: 03/20/08: ABQ Journal Builders won and were given a reprieve from the ra inwater catchment requirements so the board could gather comment on conservation measures New Mexico: Santa Fe County Requires Rain Bins: 11/20/03: ABQ Journal Santa Fe passed a new ordinance for water harvesting. New Mexico: Where water's never plenty; A test house in Santa Fe, N.M., incorporates such conservation methods as reusing water from bathtubs and sinks. Water conservation, where it's always needed.: 08/17/06: The Philadelphia Inquirer About the PATH program which is a public/private Pa rtnership for Advancing Technology in Housing. Financed a house that has new water conservation measures (gray water, rainwater harvesting). Building a house with rainwater harvesting allowed for trees and gardens to be planted which would not otherwise be possible because of water restrictions placed by Santa Fe. New Mexico: Writing through Water: 04/09/04: The Santa Fe New Mexican About a woman from Boulder who writes about water and teaches at the University of New Mexico in art and art history.

PAGE 95

86 New Mexico: Dealing with Drought: 04/09/06: The Santa Fe New Mexican About greenhouses and watering restrictions and people turning to xeriscape. But people with rain catchment can have better gardens. Utah: Free as the rain? Don't bet on it; collecting wet bounty may be illegal: 10/22/08: The Salt Lake Tribune A rticle identifies lots of players in the rainwater harvesting agenda, most of them supporting, but also details the history of Utah's prior appropriation water law. Utah: Utah Legislature: Raindrops may fall into pails legally: 02/27/10: Deseret Morning News Just about SB32 Utah: Utahans harvest the rain: 07/01/10: Deseret Morning News About the passage of SB32 and some citizens who applied easily online for a permit It is the State job to appropriate water as people come forward and want to put it to beneficial use.