Evaluating the effectiveness of land and water integrative practices for achieving water sustainability within the Colorado River Basin: perceptions and indicators

Figures & data

Table 1. Survey practice questions with the OECD Principles on Water Governance

Question		OECD Principle
Q4	How effective are water supply management practices for your organization’s efforts to achieve water sustainability?
	Acquiring new water supplies: activities acquiring and/or developing new water supplies such as desalination or ground and surface water rights	1
	Water banking/recovery: activities recharging water into an aquifer, where it is stored until recovered through ground water pumping	1
	Water reuse: activities related to the reuse of wastewater as a water supply, such as treatment and distribution	2
	Water transfer and sharing agreements: activities developing and/or using agreements between two organizations to transfer or share water rights and/or supplies	1
	Water and wastewater infrastructure: activities related to the planning, building and operation of facilities to treat and distribute water or collect and treat wastewater	2
	Water quality: activities managing the quality of water delivered to customers or discharged to the environment	2
	Water resource management planning: activities related to planning water supplies and operations needed to meet future water demand, including water resource plans	1
	Water access: activities to ensure adequate access to water is available to meet community economic and social needs	2
Q5	How effective are water rates/financing practices for your organization’s efforts to achieve water sustainability?
	Development fees: activities developing and/or using fees for new development to fund new infrastructure or supplies to serve the development	1
	Conservation incentive rate structure: activities developing and/or using water rates that charge high water users more than low water users	1
	Water affordability: activities related to policies and programmes that keep water affordable for all customers	1
	Rates based on water budgets: activities developing and/or using tiered water rates tied to water budgets reflecting expected efficient customer water use	1
Q6	How effective are water demand and conservation practices for your organization’s efforts to achieve water sustainability?
	Public education on water conservation: activities that educate the public on how to use water more efficiently	2
	Water demand scenario planning: activities related to developing multiple forecasts of water demand based on different future factors affecting water demand such as land use	1
	Water conservation planning: activities, planning programmes and policies intended over time to increase water use efficiency	2
	Drought response planning: activities that develop and/or use programmes and policies applied during drought conditions to reduce water demand or increase water supplies	1
	Water efficiency incentive programmes: activities developing and/or using policies and programmes that provide incentives to customers, financial or social, to increase water efficiency	2
Q7	How effective are land-use planning practices for your organization’s efforts to achieve water sustainability?
	Water in comprehensive or general plan: activities related to including water information and issues in a comprehensive plan	1
	Density/infill/clustered development: activities developing and/or using urban design policies or regulations intended to increase water use efficiency	2
	Growth boundaries or annexation policies: activities that develop and use policies or regulations spatially limiting development to areas with available water access and supply	1
Q8	How effective are land and water collaboration practices for your organization’s efforts to achieve water sustainability?
	Joint water and land-use agency education programmes: activities in which water and land-use management agencies are jointly developing and/or implementing education programmes	2
	Population and growth projections align: activities that coordinate the forecasts of population and growth used for planning activities in land-use and water agencies	1
	Coordination of development review: activities that coordinate the development review processes conducted by land-use and water management agencies	2
	Collaboration on development code: activities in which land and water agencies are collaboratively developing regulations for land-use management and development review	2
	Coordination of water policy and procedures: activities coordinating water management policies and procedures between different water or land management agencies	2
	Integrating water and land-use planning in capital improvement plans: activities that coordinate water and land management related projects and issues within capital improvement planning processes	1
Q9	How effective are practices to integrate water into land regulations and policies for your organization’s efforts to achieve water sustainability?
	Demonstrate sufficient water supply before approving development: regulations or policies that require evidence that sufficient water supply exists to serve new development before it is approved	2
	Net-zero or water demand offset policy: regulations or policies that require new development to offset any new demand it creates by reducing existing demand	2
	Post-occupancy enforcement on water policies by a land-use authority: regulations or policies requiring land-use agencies to enforce water-related development requirements during development occupancy	2
	Water allotment: regulations or policies allocating access to water supplies for new development based on level of benefit, such as jobs or quality of life	2
	Incentives for developers based on development water efficiency: regulations or policies that provide special development incentives for projects that increase water efficiency	2
	Water efficiency requirements: regulations or policies requiring new development to use water efficient design, such as native landscapes or water harvesting	2
	Landscaping/irrigation policies and regulations: regulations or policies that increase the efficiency of landscape water use	2
	Building/plumbing policies and codes: building construction regulations or policies requiring water efficient fixtures and practices	2

Table 2. Frequencies and mean practice effectiveness results

Practice	Not at all (1)	A little (2)	Somewhat (3)	Very (4)	Extremely (5)	Don’t know	Frequency N^a	Mean^b,c	Mean N^b	SD	Skewness
Q4: Water supply management
Acquiring new water supplies	11%	10%	17%	29%	34%	0%	168	3.65	168	1.32	–0.73
Water banking/recovery	27%	12%	22%	17%	23%	0%	155	2.96	155	1.51	–0.01
Water reuse	14%	17%	23%	22%	23%	0%	175	3.25	175	1.35	–0.22
Water transfer and sharing agreements	14%	14%	25%	18%	28%	0%	154	3.31	154	1.39	–0.26
Water and wastewater infrastructure	5%	7%	18%	30%	39%	0%	183	3.91	183	1.16	–0.95
Water quality	4%	4%	16%	32%	44%	0%	180	4.07	180	1.06	−1.16
Water resource management planning	4%	7%	15%	30%	43%	0%	184	4.01	184	1.12	−1.06
Water access	5%	8%	18%	29%	40%	0%	184	3.90	184	1.17	–0.091
Q5: Water rates and financing
Development fees	6%	8%	20%	23%	20%	23%	220	3.54	169	1.21	–0.54
Conservation incentive rate structure	10%	11%	13%	21%	13%	32%	219	3.25	148	1.33	–0.33
Water affordability	8%	10%	16%	19%	11%	35%	219	3.24	142	1.27	–0.31
Rates based on water budgets	13%	8%	15%	14%	9%	42%	219	2.96	128	1.38	–0.09
Q5: Water demand and conservation
Public education on water conservation	3%	13%	28%	24%	16%	16%	216	3.46	181	1.07	–0.20
Water demand scenario planning	7%	9%	22%	21%	14%	26%	214	3.35	158	1.21	–0.36
Water conservation planning	3%	10%	25%	27%	18%	18%	215	3.57	177	1.07	–0.36
Drought response planning	4%	11%	20%	24%	19%	21%	217	3.56	171	1.16	–0.45
Water efficiency incentive programmes	7%	13%	20%	18%	15%	26%	215	3.28	159	1.26	–0.21
Q7: Land-use planning
Water in comprehensive or general plan	5%	17%	25%	25%	15%	13%	216	3.33	188	1.14	–0.17
Density/infill/clustered development	7%	12%	32%	23%	8%	17%	214	3.16	177	1.06	–0.26
Growth boundaries or annexation policies	13%	8%	20%	23%	13%	23%	216	3.21	166	1.31	–0.37
Q8: Land and water collaboration
Joint water and land-use agency education programmes	11%	15%	20%	10%	5%	37%	210	2.73	132	1.19	–0.18
Population and growth projections align	3%	13%	24%	24%	17%	18%	210	3.47	172	1.12	–0.26
Coordination of development review	5%	10%	22%	31%	19%	12%	210	3.54	184	1.13	–0.53
Collaboration on development code	8%	15%	29%	22%	12%	14%	210	3.17	180	1.16	–0.16
Coordination of water policy and procedures	7%	16%	27%	22%	6%	22%	210	3.05	164	1.08	–0.17
Integrating water and land-use planning in capital improvement plans	9%	14%	20%	20%	11%	25%	210	3.13	157	1.24	–0.18
Q9: Water into land regulations and policies
Demonstrate sufficient water supply before approving development	6%	9%	16%	26%	33%	9%	204	3.79	185	1.24	–0.82
Net-zero or water demand offset policy	27%	7%	13%	5%	4%	43%	204	2.15	117	1.30	0.75
Post-occupancy enforcement on water policies by a land-use authority	24%	11%	16%	8%	4%	37%	204	2.31	128	1.27	0.51
Water allotment	26%	8%	9%	6%	5%	45%	202	2.20	111	1.39	0.79
Incentives for developers based on development water efficiency	18%	16%	15%	12%	3%	37%	204	2.46	129	1.22	0.32
Water efficiency requirements	7%	15%	21%	29%	13%	15%	204	3.29	174	1.18	–0.35
Landscaping/irrigation policies and regulations	7%	12%	27%	26%	21%	6%	204	3.46	191	1.19	–0.39
Building/plumbing policies and codes	4%	8%	23%	32%	21%	12%	204	3.67	179	1.07	–0.63

Note: ^aIncludes ‘Don’t know’.

^bDoes not include ‘Don’t know’.

^cFigures in bold font indicate practices that had a mean above the mean average across practices of 3.3.

Table 3. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results for the test of difference between land and water manager responses of effectiveness

Practice	Mean		One-way ANOVA
	Land	Water	Test	Test value	DF1	DF2	Sig.
Acquiring new water supplies	3.12	4.03	F	33.99	1	166	0.000*
Water banking/recovery	2.72	3.13	F	6.41	1	153	0.094
Water reuse	3.11	3.35	F	2.50	1	173	0.243
Water transfer and sharing agreements	3.06	3.48	F	6.34	1	152	0.070
Water and wastewater infrastructure	3.59	4.20	F	17.08	1	181	0.000*
Water quality	3.79	4.33	Welch	11.90	1	159	0.001*
Water resource management planning	3.56	4.38	Welch	26.33	1	144	0.000*
Water access	3.59	4.18	F	15.78	1	182	0.001*
Development fees	3.18	3.85	Welch	13.10	1	145	0.000*
Conservation incentive rate structure	2.82	3.55	F	18.95	1	146	0.001*
Water affordability	2.71	3.58	F	25.50	1	140	0.000*
Rates based on water budgets	2.69	3.14	F	6.40	1	126	0.067
Public education on water conservation	3.27	3.62	F	5.35	1	179	0.030*
Water demand scenario planning	3.08	3.58	Welch	7.15	1	156	0.008*
Water conservation planning	3.29	3.83	F	12.50	1	175	0.001*
Drought response planning	3.26	3.79	F	11.70	1	169	0.003*
Water efficiency incentive programmes	2.94	3.55	Welch	9.65	1	156	0.002*
Water in comprehensive or general plan	3.29	3.38	F	0.34	1	186	0.610
Density/infill/clustered development	3.27	3.00	Welch	2.89	1	163	0.091
Growth boundaries or annexation policies	3.41	2.94	F	9.02	1	164	0.021*
Joint water and land-use agency education programmes	2.73	2.72	F	0.01	1	130	0.947
Population and growth projections align	3.31	3.64	F	4.79	1	170	0.050*
Coordination of development review	3.59	3.47	F	0.70	1	182	0.460
Collaboration on development code	3.22	3.10	F	0.60	1	178	0.505
Coordination of water policy and procedures	2.92	3.20	Welch	2.92	1	159	0.089
Integrating water and land-use planning in capital improvement plans	3.07	3.21	F	0.82	1	155	0.466
Demonstrate sufficient water supply before approving development	3.75	3.84	F	0.33	1	183	0.641
Net-zero or water demand offset policy	2.05	2.24	F	1.06	1	115	0.431
Post-occupancy enforcement on water policies by a land-use authority	2.37	2.25	F	0.46	1	126	0.596
Water allotment	1.87	2.49	F	10.84	1	109	0.017*
Incentives for developers based on development water efficiency	2.18	2.77	F	11.35	1	127	0.005*
Water efficiency requirements	3.23	3.37	F	0.90	1	172	0.421
Landscaping/irrigation policies and regulations	3.36	3.57	F	2.04	1	189	0.229
Building/plumbing policies and codes	3.69	3.65	F	0.09	1	177	0.783

Note: *Significance < 0.05

Table 4. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results for the test of difference between census group manager responses of effectiveness

Practice	Census group				One-way ANOVA
	Small poor city	Large moderate wealth city/county	Medium county mixed wealth	Small prosperous city	Test	Test value	DF1	DF2	p-value*
Acquiring new water supplies	3.88	4.50	3.21	3.79	Welch	2.621	3	5	0.158
Water banking/recovery	3.06	4.50	2.70	3.05	Welch	3.138	3	5	0.118
Water reuse	3.31	5.00	2.75	3.62	F	25.601	3	166	0.003*
Water transfer and sharing agreements	3.40	3.00	3.06	3.50	F	5.240	3	147	0.448
Water and wastewater infrastructure	4.08	4.33	3.33	4.21	Welch	4.615	3	11	0.026*
Water quality	4.26	4.00	3.51	4.35	Welch	4.874	3	10	0.025*
Water resource management planning	4.29	5.00	3.38	4.24	F	32.541	3	173	0.000*
Water access	4.04	3.00	3.20	4.40	F	40.149	3	173	0.000*
Development fees	3.74	3.00	2.91	3.87	F	25.942	3	160	0.000*
Conservation incentive rate structure	3.30	5.00	2.79	3.65	F	17.627	3	140	0.018*
Water affordability	3.33	0.00	2.70	3.71	Welch	6.697	2	82	0.002*
Rates based on water budgets	3.06	0.00	2.47	3.45	F	16.942	2	120	0.012*
Public education on water conservation	3.45	4.00	3.04	3.94	F	19.986	3	173	0.000*
Water demand scenario planning	3.41	3.50	2.93	3.66	F	11.892	3	151	0.041*
Water conservation planning	3.59	5.00	3.10	3.96	F	20.043	3	170	0.000*
Drought response planning	3.56	4.50	3.10	4.00	Welch	4.720	3	5	0.062
Water efficiency incentive programmes	3.31	5.00	2.64	3.71	F	26.787	3	150	0.001*
Water in comprehensive or general plan	3.29	3.00	3.14	3.52	F	4.063	3	178	0.373
Density/infill/clustered development	3.18	3.50	2.73	3.57	F	17.963	3	168	0.001*
Growth boundaries or annexation policies	3.21	2.00	3.02	3.40	F	4.825	3	158	0.427
Joint water and land-use agency education programmes	2.77	2.00	2.66	2.70	F	0.800	3	124	0.907
Population and growth projections align	3.52	4.00	3.00	3.75	F	14.992	3	163	0.006*
Coordination of development review	3.57	4.00	3.14	3.82	Welch	2.605	3	5	0.165
Collaboration on development code	3.11	5.00	2.88	3.43	F	10.757	3	170	0.042*
Coordination of water policy and procedures	3.09	4.00	2.80	3.24	F	5.668	3	155	0.175
Integrating water and land-use planning in capital improvement plans	3.17	4.00	2.55	3.70	F	29.499	3	148	0.000*
Demonstrate sufficient water supply before approving development	3.78	2.50	3.55	4.12	Welch	3.356	3	5	0.109
Net-zero or water demand offset policy	2.00	3.00	2.00	2.58	F	8.431	3	110	0.176
Post-occupancy enforcement on water policies by a land-use authority	2.27	0.00	2.03	2.72	F	9.452	2	122	0.055
Water allotment	2.02	0.00	1.94	2.88	F	14.775	2	104	0.020*
Incentives for developers based on development water efficiency	2.30	0.00	2.44	2.71	Welch	1.505	2	72	0.229
Water efficiency requirements	3.36	3.50	2.74	3.67	Welch	4.554	3	5	0.066
Landscaping/irrigation policies and regulations	3.52	3.50	2.83	3.92	Welch	6.999	3	5	0.029*
Building/plumbing policies and codes	3.78	4.00	3.05	4.06	Welch	5.683	3	5	0.047*

Note: *Significance < 0.05

Table 5. Frequencies (%) of ratings for importance of water sustainability indicators

Sustainability indicator	Not at all (1)	A little (2)	Somewhat (3)	Very (4)	Extremely (5)	N	Mean	SD	Skewness
Balance supply demand	2%	4%	11%	39%	44%	199	4.2	0.9	−1.33
Economic needs met	1%	3%	13%	41%	43%	199	4.2	0.9	−1.12
Quality-of-life met	2%	3%	16%	43%	37%	198	4.1	0.9	−1.03
Water shortage	1%	8%	15%	36%	41%	198	4.1	1.0	−0.93
Increasing water efficiency	3%	6%	20%	45%	26%	198	3.9	1.0	−0.84
Water loss	5%	9%	20%	39%	28%	197	3.8	1.1	0.78
Governmental coordination	2%	7%	30%	39%	23%	199	3.7	0.9	−0.43
Equitable distribution	4%	7%	26%	40%	24%	194	3.7	1.0	−0.68
Safe yield	15%	7%	14%	34%	30%	194	3.6	1.4	−0.75
Environmental stream integrity	9%	8%	29%	33%	22%	197	3.5	1.2	−0.6
Water reuse	9%	18%	27%	24%	23%	197	3.3	1.3	−0.24
Agricultural needs met	17%	20%	20%	26%	18%	198	3.1	1.4	−0.12

Table 6. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results for the test of difference between land and water manager responses of importance of water sustainability indicators

Practice	Mean		One-way ANOVA
	Land	Water	Test	Test value	DF1	DF2	Sig.
Safe yield	3.48	3.68	Welch	0.973	1	166	0.325
Balance supply demand	3.91	4.56	Welch	29.869	1	193	0.000*
Economic needs met	4.02	4.44	F	13.140	1	197	0.000*
Quality-of-life met	3.97	4.29	F	6.846	1	196	0.010*
Water reuse	3.19	3.53	F	3.518	1	195	0.062
Water loss	3.56	4.01	Welch	9.318	1	191	0.003*
Governmental coordination	3.61	3.91	Welch	5.103	1	196	0.025*
Increasing water efficiency	3.72	4.03	Welch	5.379	1	195	0.021*
Water shortage	3.78	4.44	Welch	27.447	1	193	0.000*
Environmental stream integrity	3.31	3.76	F	7.461	1	195	0.007*
Agricultural needs met	2.98	3.20	F	1.282	1	196	0.259
Equitable distribution	3.54	3.97	Welch	9.141	1	191	0.003*

Note: *Significance < 0.05

Table 7. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results for the test of difference between managers responses by census groups of importance of water sustainability indicators

Sustainability indicator	Mean				One-way ANOVA
	Small poor city	Large moderate wealth city/county	Medium county mixed wealth	Small prosperous city	Test	Test value	DF1	DF2	Sig.
Safe yield	3.65	4.33	3.48	3.59	F	0.456	3	184	0.714
Balance supply demand	4.28	4.33	3.89	4.35	Welch	1.746	3	10	0.220
Economic needs met	4.18	4.33	3.96	4.51	Welch	3.714	3	10	0.050*
Quality-of-life met	4.12	4.00	3.76	4.51	F	7.044	3	188	0.000*
Water reuse	3.39	4.67	3.05	3.54	F	2.579	3	187	0.055
Water loss	3.89	3.33	3.47	3.88	Welch	1.445	3	10	0.289
Governmental coordination	3.73	3.67	3.70	3.90	F	0.487	3	189	0.692
Increasing water efficiency	3.92	3.67	3.52	4.14	Welch	3.190	3	10	0.073
Water shortage	4.12	4.00	3.84	4.30	F	2.062	3	188	0.107
Environmental stream integrity	3.49	3.33	3.54	3.68	F	0.325	3	187	0.807
Agricultural needs met	2.73	2.67	3.73	3.10	F	6.764	3	188	0.000*
Equitable distribution	3.85	4.00	3.35	3.96	F	4.084	3	184	0.008*

Note: *Significance < 0.05

Table 8. Pearson correlation of means of practice effectiveness between land and water managers

N	34
Pearson coefficient	0.781
t-value	7.074
p-value	0.000

Figure 1. Mean effectiveness by practice and manager type.

Table 9. Pearson correlation means of practice effectiveness between census groups

	N = 34	Small poor city	Large moderate wealth city/county	Medium county mixed wealth
Large moderate wealth city/county	Pearson coefficient	0.566
	t-value	3.883
	p-value	0.000
Medium county mixed wealth	Pearson coefficient	0.914	0.527
	t-value	12.728	3.509
	p-value	0.000	0.001
Small prosperous city	Pearson coefficient	0.939	0.510	0.820
	t-value	15.391	3.357	8.105
	p-value	0.000	0.002	0.000

Figure 2. Mean effectiveness by practice and census group.

Figure 3. Mean importance by indicator and manager type.

Table 10. Pearson correlation of means of indicator importance between land and water managers

N	12
Pearson coefficient	0.946
t-value	9.260
p-value	0.000

Figure 4. Mean importance by indicator and census group.

Table 11. Pearson correlation of indicator importance means between census groups

	N = 12	Small poor city	Large moderate wealth city/county	Medium county mixed wealth
Large moderate wealth city/county	Pearson coefficient	0.561
	t-value	2.143
	p-value	0.058
Medium county mixed wealth	Pearson coefficient	0.403	−0.141
	t-value	1.393	−0.452
	p-value	0.194	0.661
Small prosperous city	Pearson coefficient	0.947	0.470	0.536
	t-value	9.350	1.686	2.006
	p-value	0.000	0.123	0.073