Not a silver bullet: social perspectives on desalination and water reuse in Texas

Figures & data

Table 1. Factor characteristics.

Variable	Factors
	1:Diversification is Key	2: Cautious About Desalination	3: Private Sector Can Do It
Eigenvalue	8.068	3.155	1.616
Percentage of variance explained	38	15	8
Number of defining sorts	11	6	3
Average relative coefficient	0.8	0.8	0.8
Composite reliability	0.978	0.960	0.923
Standard error of Factor Z-scores	0.149	0.200	0.277

Table 2. Respondent affiliations and correlations with extracted factors (*indicates defining sort).

Respondent ID	Sectoral Affiliation	Diversification is Key	Cautious About Desalination	Private Sector Can Do It
08EP	Public utility	0.8461*	0.0622	−0.0264
10TX	University or research center	0.8271*	0.0762	0.2685
07TX	Private sector (engineering, consultancy, or services)	0.7577*	−0.0301	0.1155
15SA	Public utility	0.7309*	0.1998	0.3299
12TX	State water agency	0.7309*	0.1794	0.1623
02EP	Public utility	0.7122*	−0.0212	−0.0955
09SA	Public utility	0.6987*	0.2592	0.3246
06TX	Private sector (engineering, consultancy, or services)	0.6461*	0.1532	0.4432
18CC	Public utility	0.6033*	−0.0836	0.2353
20EP	Public utility	0.5376*	0.4689	0.2163
21TX	Private sector (engineering, consultancy, or services)	0.4031*	0.2814	0.2465
04SA	Public utility	0.0579	0.8597*	−0.0706
19TX	Nonprofit (water or conservation)	0.0129	0.8104*	−0.1977
05TX	Nonprofit (water or conservation)	0.0876	0.7837*	0.0771
03EP	University or research center	0.3667	0.7681*	0.2486
01EP	University or research center	0.0699	0.7013*	0.3146
13CC	University or research center	−0.0179	0.5819*	0.1881
14TX	Private sector (engineering, consultancy, or services)	0.1642	−0.1048	0.8466*
17CC	Private sector (engineering, consultancy, or services)	0.1197	0.1789	0.7529*
11CC	Private sector (engineering, consultancy, or services)	0.3475	0.2514	0.5737*
16CC	Private sector (engineering, consultancy, or services)	0.5597	0.1897	0.5797

Table 3. Correlations between factors.

Factors	Diversification is Key	Cautious About Desalination	Private Sector Can Do It
Diversification is Key	1	0.2702	0.4278
Cautious About Desalination	0.2702	1	0.1289
Private Sector Can Do It	0.4278	0.1289	1

Table 4. Factor scores (Z) and values (V) for each statement. Significant (‘distinguishing’) statements for each factor indicated for p < 0.05 (*) and p < 0.01 (**). Z scores in standard deviations. Consensus statements indicated with C.

Theme	Statement	Diversification is Key			Cautious About Desalination			Private Sector Can Do It
		Z		V	Z		V	Z		V
Water Security	4.Desalination is not a get out of jail free card for unfettered economic growth. We can technologically solve our water supply problem but unconstrained growth creates other water problems down the road.	−0.69	**	−1	1.91	**	4	0.52	**	1
	17. If the ultimate objective is reliable, sustainable, and drought-proof water, there’s only one technology that checks those boxes indefinitely, and that’s desalination.	−0.13		0	−2.09	**	−4	0.09		0
	18. There is never water security in the sense that you have enough water. There will always be demands on water. You are always chasing a little bit more water even with desalination and water reuse in place.	1.29		3	0.97		2	−0.30	**	−1
	24. When you introduce desalination, I think that you eliminate your barriers to water security. If you start producing water, you’ve eliminated the biggest barrier to water security.	0.28	**	1	−1.29		−2	−0.95		−2
Water Systems	3. Rather than implementing reuse and desalination, we should carefully consider how much conservation and demand management can stretch water supplies.	−0.79		−2	1.85	**	4	−0.30		−1
	9. The biggest long-term water concern for Texas cities is not finding new sources of fresh water like desalinated or reclaimed water, but protecting the sources Texas cities already have. C (P > 0.01)	0.17		1	0.63		2	0.34		1
	20 Farmers would rather see cities use more desalination because if cities stop using so much of the fresh groundwater, it is freed up for farmers to use.	−0.13		0	−0.86	*	−2	−0.13		0
	36. Diversification, not desperation is our motivating factor when it comes to water supply. That’s why we should pursue desalination and water reuse.	1.90	**	4	0.24		0	−0.17		−1
Governance regulatory Environment	6. Managing desalination and water reuse has to include building trust and relationships with the community. If you lack credibility, nobody’s going to care what you have to say.	1.96		4	1.02	*	2	1.85		4
	15. TCEQ permits are woefully inadequate for considering the environmental impacts of desalination. They assume every proposed site is the same and that’s just not the case.	−0.86	**	−2	0.28	**	0	−1.81	**	−4
	23. Government has to play a primary role in delivering desalinated water. There are too many risks associated with private water suppliers. Companies come and go. Government tends to be more long lasting. C (P > 0.01)	0.26		1	0.57		1	−0.12		0
	26. I think there’s a critical regulatory role in the continuous monitoring for quality control for water reuse to maintain public trust to be able to reuse the water for drinking water purposes.	1.12		2	0.45		1	0.78		2
Barriers and Risks	7. There are economic risks with desalination. If it’s not well thought out or it’s in the wrong place, it can exacerbate social inequalities in a community and create marginal hardship on ratepayers.	0.18	**	1	1.16		3	1.42		3
	28. The private sector is better suited for running desalination because it has workforce experiences that municipal governments do not have.	−1.39		−3	−1.33		−3	1.55	**	3
	30. Municipal utilities are subject to the political whims of the city council, and have a difficult time making long-term investments required for water reuse and desalination.	−0.10		0	0.57		1	0.09		0
	33. There’s not a lot of communication between the engineers and environmental scientists around how to best implement seawater desalination because they don’t necessarily look at problems the same way.	−0.08		0	0.31		1	−1.03	**	−2
Promoters and Facilitators	2. To afford the water projects needed for long-term resiliency, we have to bring in Public-Private Partnerships for desalination projects.	−0.60		−1	−0.26		−1	1.71	**	3
	11. The benefit of brackish desalination is that it is a reliable supply that no one else can use so you don’t have to worry about competition from someone else.	−0.95	*	−2	−1.56	*	−3	0.17	**	1
	14. Non-potable recycled water is certainly superior to using drinking water to irrigate grass. It would be better to utilize this resource than further burden the potable water system.	1.48	*	3	0.88		2	0.56		1
	22. Political leaders supporting desalination need to have public buy-in from the beginning.	1.13	**	3	−0.03		0	0.05		0
Technological Transitions and Pathways	5. Resource recovery of concentrate is an opportunity that opens up with desalination. Rather than wasting it, concentrate can be turned into something and sold.	1.11		2	−0.45	**	−1	0.77		2
	10. It’s never going to rain enough in Texas for us to depend on water reservoirs so our only option is to go with desalination.	−0.83	**	−2	−1.76	**	−4	0.21	**	1
	16. We’re fortunate in Texas that there are no state Direct Potable Reuse standards. It’s just a case-by-case situation.	−0.09	**	0	−1.33		−3	−1.07		−3
	25. A centralized water system can’t capture demand growth on the fringes of urban areas. Decentralized water reuse systems are more efficient. They capture and treat water close to the point of the origin as possible. C (P > 0.01)	−0.22		−1	0.31	*	1	−0.56		−2
Cost Value Nexus	8. There is a need for more regionalization when it comes to investments in water. Urban areas have the population base to afford desalination and water reuse projects, but rural communities lack that ability.	0.55	*	1	−0.09	*	−1	1.76	**	4
	13. Rolled into the cost of desalination is certainty. It is the only drought proof source of water that you have. So, you’re paying for that premium.	0.03	*	0	−0.97	**	−2	0.77	*	2
	27. Rate increases are needed to help us cover the rising costs associated with delivering a sustainable water supply using desalination and reuse technologies today and for years to come.	1.00		2	0.18		0	0.39		1
	29. The public is not provided the real information about the threats and the costs of desalination.	−1.80		−4	0.43	**	1	−1.67		−3
Climate Change and Sustain- ability	19. Environmental interests should not be a speed bump for desalination projects or viewed as a delay that will cost developers money. Environmental concerns should be listened to and incorporated into the plans. C (P > 0.01)	1.09		2	1.19		3	0.73		2
	31. Seawater desalination intake and discharge should come from further off-shore in the Gulf. An intake and brine discharge system in the bay would be devastating to the ecosystem.	−0.29	*	−1	0.25	*	0	−1.50	**	−3
	32. A misconception about water reuse is that it’s a path toward resiliency. Yet, if an upstream city reuses 100% of water from their treatment plant, it could dry up a downstream river. C (P > 0.05)	−0.35		−1	−0.08		−1	−0.34		−1
	34. There are no positives to seawater desalination. It’s destructive to the ecosystem, extractive and exploitative with negative externalities that are horrible for the natural environment.	−1.89		−4	−1.16	**	−2	−2.23		−4
Industry Role	1. I’m skeptical when our leaders say, ‘We have to have this desalinated water for our community’. I think that’s a pretty loose usage of the word ‘community’. Basically they mean it’s for industry.	−1.38		−3	0.04	*	0	−0.77		−2
	12. Long-term water reliability through desalination comes at a higher cost, but there is an issue of equity when current residents are subsidizing future growth and development that isn’t their fault.	−0.72		−1	1.19	**	3	−0.12		0
	21. The strength of desalination is the consistent supply of water for industry because they won’t have to shut down production during droughts.	0.86	**	1	−0.52		−1	−0.31		−1
	35. The reason why industrial users want us to do desalination is because they want to maximize profits. They want government money and to offload cost onto the public because it’s so expensive. C (P > 0.05)	−1.10		−3	−0.63		−1	−0.33		−1