Multifaceted intra-city water system arrangements in California: Influences and implications for residents

Abstract

Some cities directly provide drinking water and other utility services to their residents, whereas others contract out these responsibilities in full or in part, with considerable implications for service and non-service outcomes. There is a robust literature considering reasons for city-private provider binaries, as well as a growing number of studies assessing the rise in special district service provision, mixed service delivery arrangements, and inter-municipal service delivery within metropolitan contexts. On the other hand, there are few studies assessing city-level prevalence of these three main provider types jointly, as well as fully accounting for the diversity of institutional arrangements in drinking water service within individual cities.In this study, we construct an empirical profile of and analyze influences on diverse city-level water service provider arrangements using a dataset compiled for all 482 cities in California. Our analysis shows that 80% of cities are served by either a municipality, a private, investor-owned utility or a special district, with special districts being more common than private providers. Moreover, 20% of cities had more than one service provider, and 68% of these cities were served by more than one system type, including many where municipal and private providers co-existed. Using multivariate regression techniques, we analyze influences on different types of city-level drinking water service arrangements. We find that city incorporation date most profoundly influences the mix of water systems in cities, especially arrangements involving special districts or multiple system types. We also find that cities which run their own water system exclusively are more likely to institute conservation policies, and provide suggestive evidence that residents living in cities served by multiple water systems are exposed to wide variance in water rates. Water system fragmentation within city boundaries thus has implications for resource management policy and equity in intra-city resident essential service outcomes.