Provided for non-commercial research and educational use only. Not for reproduction or distribution or commercial use.

This article was originally published by IWA Publishing. IWA Publishing recognizes the retention of the right by the author(s) to photocopy or make single electronic

copies of the paper for their own personal use, including for their own classroom use, or the personal use of colleagues, provided the copies are not offered for sale and

are not distributed in a systematic way outside of their employing institution.

Please note that you are not permitted to post the IWA Publishing PDF version of your paper on your own website or your institution’s website or repository.

Please direct any queries regarding use or permissions to waterpolicy@iwap.co.uk

Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120

Social learning in an environmental justice context: a case studyof integrated regional water management

doi: 10.

© IWA

Carolina L. Balazs* and Mark Lubell

University of California, Davis, Environmental Science and Policy, 1 Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616, USA

*Corresponding author. E-mail: cbalazs@ucdavis.edu

Abstract

California recently implemented a statewide effort to learn how best to outreach to and involve ‘disadvantagedcommunities’ in integrated regional water management (IRWM) planning. Using the case of the Kings BasinWater Authority’s Disadvantaged Community Pilot Project Study, we argue that social learning is a key mech-anism through which the procedural and distributive justice goals of environmental justice are integrated intowater resources planning. Using interviews, focus groups and survey results, we find that social learning hasshort- and medium-term effects of increasing access to information, broadening stakeholder participation anddeveloping initial foundations for structural changes to water governance. However, long-term change in the struc-ture of IRWM institutions is, at best, in its early phases. Social learning provides a basis for changing watergovernance and management outcomes in ways that promote representation of traditionally marginalizedgroups and the water challenges they face.

Keywords: Disadvantaged communities; Environmental justice; Governance; Integrated regional watermanagement; Procedural justice; Social learning; Stakeholder participation; Water

1. Introduction

In California, the topics of integrated regional water management (IRWM) and environmental justice(EJ) are at a unique confluence given the challenges that small, under-resourced systems face in provid-ing clean, affordable and reliable drinking water (Balazs et al., 2011, 2012; United Nations GeneralAssembly, 2011; Harter et al., 2012). These challenges have led to an increased statewide effort to sup-port regional solutions and involve non-traditional water interests, such as disadvantaged communities,in IRWM planning (Governor’s Drinking Water Stakeholder Group, 2012; Harter et al., 2012; Honey-cutt et al., 2012). In this process, important questions have emerged regarding how best to outreach to,involve and support disadvantaged communities (DACs), defined as communities with an annual

2166/wp.2014.101

Publishing 2014

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–12098

median household income that is less than 80% of the state’s1 (California Water Code §79505.5(a),2009). In an effort to answer these questions, the California Department of Water Resources fundedseven DAC Pilot Studies. Using the case of the Kings Basin Water Authority’s Disadvantaged Commu-nity Pilot Project Study (‘the Kings Study’ or ‘the Study’), this paper assesses the impact of DACparticipation in regional water planning efforts.To guide the evaluation, we adapt the social learning framework developed by Pahl-Wostl et al.

(2007b) and Pahl-Wostl (2009), and argue that social learning is a key mechanism for the linking ofprocedural justice goals of participation to equitable water planning outcomes and EJ (Figure 1).Social learning refers to the capacity of different stakeholders to learn from each other in order tomanage resources effectively. More specifically, it refers to the iterative processes by which individualsengage in actions and interactions that are at once influenced by social structures and practices and alsocapable of changing them (Pahl-Wostl & Hare, 2004). We trace how the participation of DACs

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework integrating participation and social learning in relation to IRWM. Participation triggers sociallearning, leading to concrete actions and equitable outcomes.

1 According to this definition, the MHI (median household income) threshold for a DAC corresponds to $48,314. Severelydisadvantaged communities (SDACs) are 60% of the MHI, or $36,235 (2012). Beyond income levels, DACs and SDACshave a broader range of characteristics that distinguish them. These include the inability to achieve economies of scale, lowrevenues, dependence on a single source of water, lack of access to technology, limited ability to hire paid staff orconsultants, limited understanding of regional or state dialogue concerning water policy, and often more minority (i.e.Latino) populations (CWC et al., 2013). While the income-based definition is actively debated, for this paper we use thesecurrent state definitions.

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120 99

alongside diverse, multi-level stakeholders (e.g. local, county and regional agencies) results in sociallearning. We argue that social learning within and across these stakeholders enables new ways of think-ing and concrete actions to emerge at different timescales and that this may ultimately result in moreequitable outcomes within IRWM.Our equity-focused social learning framework makes three contributions to the existing literature on

water management and EJ. First, it provides an explicit mechanism for linking participation in watermanagement to core EJ concepts of procedural justice. Fundamentally, both the Integrated WaterResource Management (IWRM)2 and EJ literature recognize the importance of participation. Theformer theorizes that participation develops democratic legitimacy and deliberation (Priscoli, 2004;Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007b), builds the interdependence of diverse stakeholders and sectors (Pahl-Wostlet al., 2007a) and allows for a broader knowledge base to be drawn on for finding innovative solutions(Joss & Brownlea, 1999; Berkes & Folke, 2001; Pahl-Wostl, 2002b). In EJ, participation enables com-munities to ‘speak for themselves’ (Principles of EJ, 1992; Cole & Foster, 2000) and increases thecapacity of ‘citizen experts’ (Cole & Foster, 2000) to challenge the current social order (Brulle, 2000).While EJ emphasizes how participation meets normative criteria of procedural justice3, IWRM scho-

lars note that participation also catalyzes social learning. This learning allows stakeholders to connect inflexible networks, develop social capital and trust and ultimately shape institutional change (Priscoli,2004; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007b). This is particularly important in water management, as it tends tobe polycentric (i.e. multiple decision-making centers), and includes heterogeneous stakeholders andnetworks that operate at multiple levels (Rhodes, 1997; Pahl-Wostl, 2002a; Lubell & Edelenbos,2013). While the EJ literature acknowledges that learning occurs during participation (Evans &Boyte, 1986; Winter, 1996; Brulle, 2000; Cole & Foster, 2000), the role of learning is generally lessdeveloped. We hypothesize that participation, by activating social learning, provides a basis for chan-ging water governance and management outcomes in ways that promote representation oftraditionally marginalized groups and the water challenges they face. Thus social learning provides alink between procedural and distributive justice; to the extent that it changes water management insti-tutions it can ameliorate inequities in environmental harm (e.g. unsafe water or poor infrastructure).Second, our expanded framework emphasizes that DACs are not the only actors that experience social

learning. Rather, social learning occurs among various types of stakeholders and at different levels. Forexample, in interacting with DACs, a government agency representative may learn about the importanceof community-driven projects and change his/her approach to working with DACs in water planning.We posit that this joint learning – of DACs and those working with DACs – is what enables broadersystemic change to emerge in IRWM. This is an important extension to the EJ literature that tends to

2 This paper uses two related, but different terms: IWRM and IRWM (note the ‘R’ is switched). According to the Global WaterPartnership, IWRM (Integrated Water Resources Management) is the ‘process which promotes the coordinated developmentand management of water, land and related resources in order to maximize economic and social welfare in an equitablemanner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems and the environment’ (www.gwp.org/The-Challenge/What-is-IWRM). As practised in California, IRWM – Integrated Regional Water Management – is a related watermanagement and planning approach defined as ‘a collaborative effort to manage all aspects of water resources in a region.IRWM crosses jurisdictional, watershed, and political boundaries; involves multiple agencies, stakeholders, individuals, andgroups; and attempts to address the issues and differing perspectives of all the entities involved through mutually beneficialsolutions’ (www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants).3 Procedural justice is defined as the fair implementation of programs and policies, and the right for all people to participateactively in decision-making (Principles of Environmental Justice, 1992; Shrader-Frechette, 2002; Schlosberg, 2003).

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120100

emphasize learning just among traditionally marginalized groups. Conversely, it is an important exten-sion to the social learning studies in IRWM that rarely address learning among EJ communities.Third, our framework connects the iterative and multi-scale nature of learning and change in IRWM

to temporally dependent EJ goals. In particular, social learning emphasizes the difference between short-and medium-term change, and long-term structural change that results from ‘triple-loop learning’ (Pahl-Wostl, 2006). In the context of EJ and water planning, our study assesses both short- and long-termlearning, associated outcomes and their impact on equity.California’s attempt to address EJ in the context of IRWM is an excellent research setting for applying a

social learning framework. In the early 2000s, California institutionalized the process of IRWM (CDWR,2005), developing 48 IRWM regions. IRWMwas meant to provide multi-benefit solutions to multiple sta-keholders, and promote a regional approach to tackling water problems. Developing sustainable solutionsfor DACs requires understanding their problems, ensuring that these communities are able to access fund-ing resources such as IRWM grants, and promoting their participation in IRWM. But despite state-levelawareness of DAC issues, IRWM venues have been largely inaccessible to DACs given the highly tech-nical environments, and general political disenfranchisement of rural, low-income communities and/orcommunities of color. In addition, traditional IRWM stakeholders (e.g. largewater districts and agriculturalinterests) have had a poor understanding of the drinking water issues that plague DACs.The California Department of Water Resources has increasingly mandated that IRWM efforts assess

how to increase DAC participation (CDWR, 2012). In its first stage of program funding, the Departmentof Water Resources recognized the need to incorporate DACs and EJ communities (CDWR, 2005). In asecond stage, the California legislature passed a bill requiring 10% of all IRWM grant monies to bereserved for DAC projects4. Even after these renewed efforts, however, participation of DACs remainedminimal and they continued to face challenges in accessing funding. To remedy these problems, startingin 2011 the Department of Water Resources funded seven pilot programs (‘DAC Pilot Programs’) todevelop models for improving participation and addressing the water needs of DACs. The KingsStudy was one such project.Despite the theoretical promise of an increased focus on EJ and DAC participation, IRWM’s potential

pitfalls and challenges must be considered. IRWM is meant to facilitate cooperation by developing socialcapital among stakeholders, increasing the availability of information and offering funding opportunities tosupport integrated projects (Lubell & Lippert, 2011). In doing so it challenges a fragmented system of‘water politics-as-usual’ where geographic interdependence, localism and domination of well-organizedeconomic interests (e.g. water supply agencies) can interfere with cooperation. But some question howquickly IRWM can influence new models of cooperation in a short time-frame (Lubell & Lippert,2011). Lubell (2004) argues that collaborative management may simply be ‘symbolic’, quelling discontentwithout changing underlying structures of power. Others emphasize the importance of recognizing howpolitics and the political in the ‘hydrosocial’ landscape can result in the production of just and unjust out-comes in integrated water resource management (Zwarteveen & Boelens 2014; Perreault 2014). Thissuggests some reservation when considering the impact of EJ-oriented IRWM work; a new focus (i.e.drinking water or EJ) on less economically endowed interests with less political power (i.e. DACs)may prove challenging in even the most well-meaning of IRWM regions.

4 In 2009, Assembly Bill 626 (Eng) required that 10% of all IRWM plan funds awarded in each IRWM region be designatedfor DACs (CWC§83002(c)(i)).

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120 101

We use the Kings Study as a preliminary case study because it was one of the earliest statewide DACPilot Programs to reach completion5. Our case explores the extent to which the interests of DACs and EJadvocates in increasing participation and developing regional solutions are incorporated into IRWMplanning. Using a variety of qualitative methods, from participant observation to in-depth interviews,we ask: (1) what evidence of social learning is there in the Kings Basin, and (2) what are its impactsfor EJ and IRWM planning?

2. The social learning framework: linking participation to social learning in IRWM and EJ

Table 1 specifies how Pahl-Wostl’s (2009) social learning framework translates more specifically tothe context of IRWM and EJ. Here, we map the three types of social learning in relation to core EJ con-cepts, the objectives of the Kings Study and our hypothesized learning outcomes (Table 1). In single-loop learning, stakeholder actions are refined to improve performance in the short-term, but guidingassumptions and routines are not changed or called into question (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007a). In relationto EJ, this type of learning parallels Winter’s (1996) ‘free spaces’ where capacity-building occurs andaccess to information is gained. Single-loop learning in an EJ-IRWM context could entail members ofan IRWM group learning more about drinking water problems in DACs, or DACs learning about poss-ible technical solutions. In these cases, capacity and awareness might increase, but the guidingassumptions and routines of existing stakeholders and governance institutions are not fundamentallychallenged or changed.In double-loop learning the frame of reference changes and guiding assumptions are called into ques-

tion. Actors reflect on goals, priorities and problem-framing and explore a full range of solutions, albeitwithin current structural constraints. On a short to medium timescale learning takes place between sta-keholders in collaboration processes. On the medium to long timescale, learning changes actor networks(Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007a; Pahl-Wostl, 2009). While there may be experimentation with new manage-ment approaches, widespread implementation of these approaches might still be blocked by structuralconstraints. In the EJ literature, this type of learning is reminiscent of ‘deliberative learning’ where par-ticipants revise their perceptions (Cole & Foster, 2000), new institutional understandings occur (Winter,1996; Cole & Foster, 2000) and connections are made across diverse participants and issues. In relationto IRWM and EJ, residents may realize that they face common water challenges and be inspired to workcollectively. DAC stakeholders may question whether it is fair to require ‘pay to play’ policies, in whichonly communities that pay membership fees are allowed to vote on a governing body. But, althoughstakeholders may question guiding assumptions of existing IRWM groups, existing structural constraintssuch as current funding or governance requirements and inequities in political power may impede anylasting change.In triple-loop learning there is a ‘transformation of the structural context and factors that deter-

mine the frames of reference’ as actors recognize and change paradigms and existing structuralconstraints (Pahl-Wostl, 2009: 359). This type of learning tends to take place on a long-term time-scale (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007a). Essentially, the established resource management regime changes,

5 The authors are currently beginning an evaluation of all seven DAC Pilot Grants, but the formal analysis has not yet begun.The conclusion references two Final Reports that were produced by two other DAC Pilot Studies as this article was in its finalreview stages.

Table 1. The three types of social learning in relation to core EJ concepts, hypothesized learning outcomes and objectives ofthe Kings Basin Disadvantaged Community Pilot Study.

Learning in relation to:

Type of learning and core concepts Environmental justiceHypothesized learning outcomes (KingsBasin study objectives)

Single-loop learning• Actions improved/refined• Guiding assumptions not challenged

• ‘Free spaces’ where skills can bedeveloped (Evans & Boyte,1986; Winter, 1996)

• Access to information is moredemocratic (Brulle, 2000)

• Learning about DAC water issues andinterests (Develop inventory of DACwater issues)

• Learning about regional solutions(Teach core concepts: IRWM, regionalsolutions, funding)

• Learning about how to outreach toDACs (Outreach to DACs)

• Learning about funding (Teach coreconcepts)

Double-loop learning• Guiding assumptions questioned• Reflection on priorities/frames ofreference, within current structuralcontext

• Actor network may change• Implementation of new approachesblocked by structural constraints

• Connections between diverseparticipants

• Deliberative learning whereparticipants can revise theirperceptions (Cole & Foster,2000)

• Awareness of common problems• New institutional understandings(Winter, 1996; Cole & Foster,2000)

• Broader connections made acrossissues

• Collective power develops(Winter, 1996; Cole & Foster,2000)

• Reconsider the role of regionalsolutions (Engage and integrate DACsinto IRWM)

• Reconsider the type of support DACsneed (Engage and integrate DACs intoIRWM)

• Reconsider what types of decision-making can support DAC waterplanning (e.g. funding support,technical support, education) (Facilitatepartnerships between DACs and KingsAuthority)

• Change in composition of actornetworks/new relationships

Triple-loop learning• Underlying structural context changes• Actors recognize structural constraintsand surpass existing governancestructures/regimes

• Actor networks are transformed toinclude new groups, changes in power,new regulatory frames/policies

• Policy/governance yields tocollective power

• Community transforms thinkingand approaches

• Institutional transformation leadsto lasting and equitable structuralchanges

• Increased DAC momentum/involvement(Facilitate partnerships between DACsand Kings Authority)

• Changes to Kings Basin IRWMAuthority governance structures

• Actor network transformed

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120102

actors’ networks are transformed to include new actor groups, power structures shift and new regu-latory frameworks are introduced (Pahl-Wostl, 2009). This parallels EJ notions of how collectivepower can transform thinking and approaches, and lead to lasting equitable structural change inEJ. For example, participation of trained ‘citizen experts’ in science or policy-making arenas canchallenge the current social order of decision-making (Brown 1998, cited in Brulle, 2000; Cole& Foster, 2000). In the case of EJ and IRWM, DACs or new actor networks could pressure existingIRWM groups to change their governance structures. As local IRWM groups change, this can

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120 103

ultimately result in changes to statewide IRWM practices that support lasting, equitable institutionalchanges. For example, the leaders of an IRWM group might restructure the membership require-ments to allow for participation of communities that cannot pay full membership dues.Ultimately, state-level policies and legislation could then be revised to better support DAC partici-pation and access to funding.Linking the social learning framework to the Kings Study’s objectives, Table 1 summarizes a series

of hypothesized learning outcomes. For single-loop learning, hypothesized learning outcomes focus onlearning about content and information. For double-loop learning, hypothesized outcomes can be classi-fied into two main categories: questioning guiding assumptions related to IRWM or regional planning,and developing new networks. For triple-loop learning, hypothesized learnings include movementtowards structural change as well as transformation of actor networks.Figure 2 then highlights our hypothesis that, in order for these outcomes to emerge, learning must

occur within and across groups of stakeholders. The figure begins by showing the various stakeholdergroups depicted as boxes. Our hypothesized learning outcomes are summarized in the ‘outcomes’boxes. In theory, learning can occur within a stakeholder group (circular arrows within a stakeholdergroup), and across them (external arrows connecting stakeholder groups). In single-loop learning, learn-ing occurs within stakeholder groups. In double-loop learning, the dotted lines indicate a broadening ofrelationships and networks, enabling learning to occur across groups. In triple-loop learning, theaddition of red triangles indicates a transformation of a network, as a stakeholder group is transformed.While each type of learning can occur simultaneously and iteratively, their implications for EJ occur inorder of increasing importance.

3. Case description: the Kings Basin Disadvantaged Community Pilot Study

3.1. The Kings Basin: hydrogeology, demographics and governance

The Kings Basin is located in the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley groundwater basin in Cali-fornia’s San Joaquin Valley (the southern half of the Central Valley). The area consists primarily ofagricultural land, with two major urban centers (i.e. the cities of Fresno and Clovis), dozens of smallercities and roughly 100 small, rural unincorporated communities. Communities in the Basin are denotedas non-disadvantaged (non-DACs), disadvantaged (DACs) or severely disadvantaged (SDACs)6. Begin-ning in 2001 local water agencies in the Basin began a process of regional cooperation known as the‘Upper Kings Basin Advisory Panel’ to focus on groundwater overdraft. In 2004, the Panel solicitedwider stakeholder participation as part of the Upper Kings Basin Water Forum, and eventually devel-oped the 2007 Upper Kings Basin IRWM Plan under the auspices of the Department of WaterResources grant program. The Plan focused on improving water management, reducing conflicts, pro-tecting water quality and ensuring sustainable management through regional cooperation (KBWA,2012). In 2009, the Water Forum evolved into a formal Joint Powers Authority to govern and

6 In California, a severely disadvantaged community is less than 60% of the state’s MHI (California Water Code §79505.5(a),2009).

Fig. 2. Conceptual diagram highlighting learning within and across various stakeholder groups and the link with EJ and IRWMoutcomes. The full color version of this figure is available online at www.iwaponline.com/wp.toc/htm.

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120104

implement the Plan, and became known as the Upper Kings Basin IRWM Authority (‘the Authority’).According to the California Water Code, the Authority satisfies the conditions of a Regional WaterManagement Group (KBWA, 2012). In 2012, the Authority expanded its geographic scope to include

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120 105

both the upper and lower portions of the Basin, thus changing its common name to the Kings BasinWater Authority7. The Authority is governed by a board of directors composed of a representativefrom each member agency (e.g. water districts, cities). Members must execute the joint powers agree-ment and pay annual fees set by the board of directors. Interested parties can participate in Authoritymeetings free of cost, but do not have voting privileges. As of 2012, the Authority had 18 officialvoting members and 35 interested parties. Entities (e.g. water districts or communities) within theIRWM Plan’s boundaries can apply for funding from the Authority through a competitive processwhich includes being added to the Authority’s project list8.

3.2. The Kings Basin Water Authority Disadvantaged Community Pilot Study

Until 2012, DAC water challenges were only nominally addressed in the Authority’s IRWM Plan.Local EJ advocacy groups identified three continual issues: (1) poor DAC participation in IRWM meet-ings; (2) the inability of DACs to access funding, despite a DAC-specific set-aside; and (3) a lack ofunderstanding of DACs’ water needs. Although the Authority’s 2012 IRWM Plan added a specific sec-tion on DACs (KBWA, 2012), Authority leaders and EJ organizations in the Basin obtained fundingfrom the Department of Water Resources to further study DACs, explore how best to outreach toDACs and develop a more robust list of DAC-specific potential pilot projects to incorporate into theAuthority’s project list. Thus emerged the Kings Basin Water Authority Disadvantaged CommunityPilot Project Study. The Authority subcontracted with three groups to jointly conduct the Study – Pro-vost and Pritchard, a water engineering firm in the Valley; the Community Water Center, a water-focused EJ organization in the Valley; and Self-Help Enterprises, a technical non-governmental organ-ization that works with small communities to resolve water challenges and obtain funding.The Kings Study’s four broad objectives were to: (1) develop a comprehensive inventory of all DACs

and their water-related needs; (2) engage and integrate DACs into the IRWM planning process; (3)develop conceptual pilot project descriptions and cost estimates to include in the Kings BasinIRWMP master project list (for funding purposes); and (4) facilitate partnerships between DACs andother IRWMP members and interested parties (for sub-objectives see CWC et al. (2013)). Table 1maps these objectives in relation to the three types of social learning.The Study involved three primary stakeholder groups: (1) the Kings Study Project Participants (‘pro-

ject participants’), composed of residents, water board and district members and advocates from DACsand SDACs, local, regional and state government representatives and other water groups or interestedparties (i.e. local engineers, non-governmental organizations etc.); (2) the Project consulting team

7 While the Authority’s legal name is the Upper Kings Basin IRWM Authority, since the Kings Basin Water Authority is thecommon name used in discussion and marketing and more accurately captures the IRWM Plan’s true boundaries, we use thisname throughout the rest of the paper to refer to the IRWM group.8 This is the list used to compete for and distribute funding. According to IRWM Guidelines set forth by the Department ofWater Resources, each IRWM region should develop a ‘project list’ to use in the competition for state IRWM funds. Thisprocess involves identifying projects to implement in the IRWM Plan and prioritizing projects in relation to grantopportunities. The Authority has adopted a procedure which includes: (1) having water agencies, stakeholders, members orinterested parties submit a project to the Authority; (2) reviewing and prioritizing projects to include in grant applications;(3) communicating a list of selected projects. New and revised projects are reviewed on a quarterly basis and listed in theBoard’s Annual Report once approved for inclusion (KBWA, 2012).

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120106

(‘project team’) consisting of the aforementioned sub-contractors; and (3) the Authority, comprisingIRWM leaders, members and interested parties.To facilitate participation in project meetings and relationship-building, the project team divided the

Basin into five sub-regions: Northern Tulare County, Fresno/Clovis, Western Fresno County, EasternFresno County and Northern Kings County. The team collected data about the types of communitiesand extent of water problems in all five regions. This information was to be integrated into theIRWM’s database. In each sub-region, the team then conducted four community meetings to teachabout IRWM and regional solutions and facilitate a process of developing conceptual pilot projects.At the first meeting, participants were introduced to the funding and regional planning concepts ofIRWM. They were given maps of water problems in the area and asked for feedback on the notedproblems and barriers to regional collaboration. In Meeting 2, participants built on informationlearned at Meeting 1 and developed a list of priority water projects that incorporated a regional/joint approach. These approaches may have been based on existing ideas, or developed in thecourse of the project. At Meeting 3, the consulting team presented participants with a series of‘pilot project options’, based on participant input from Meeting 2. Participants then selected one pro-ject and the project team developed that pilot project and presented the results at Meeting 4. In theend, the Study developed five pilot projects (one in each sub-region) that addressed specific waterneeds of 12 communities (CWC et al., 2013). The database of water challenges and the matrix ofnon-selected pilot concepts were to be given to the Kings IRWM for integration into their databasesand list of potential projects to fund.

4. Methods and approach

While the main focus of the Kings Study was to increase participation of DACs, all stakeholders areconsidered essential in this analysis. Thus we assessed the types of learning that took place and theimpact on IRWM planning by exploring the views of the three stakeholder groups. When relevant,the specific type of participant/stakeholder is listed.Three primary methods were implemented by the lead author to assess learning among project par-

ticipants. First, she conducted participant observation at Kings Study and Authority meetings. This wasfacilitated by the fact that at the time of the Kings Study, the lead author was a researcher at the Com-munity Water Center. Second, the lead author conducted ‘key informant’ interviews with leaders fromeach sub-region. Here, in consultation with the project team, 1–3 key participants from each sub-regionwere identified for interviews. The interview guide focused on questions relating to the project’s suc-cesses, challenges and impacts. In total nine participants from four of the five sub-regions agreed toparticipate. Of these nine, six were community leaders, two were government representatives and onewas both a community leader and project team member. The third method was a survey evaluationadministered at Meeting 4. Since we strove to assess learning over the course of the project, only projectparticipants who had attended any combination of Meetings 1 to 3, or Meeting 4 plus any other meeting,were surveyed. Survey participants who only came to Meeting 4 would not have been able to learn any-thing in earlier meetings due to non-attendance, but participants attending any combination of the earliermeetings were continually provided with a review of previous meetings and lessons learned. Of the 314individuals (in 221 entities) outreached to as part of the Study, 69 participated in the project. Of these,36 met survey inclusion criteria, and 30 participated in the survey. Participants who attended Meetings

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120 107

1–3 but did not attend Meeting 4 were emailed and called for phone surveys. These participants wereasked questions relating to the overall project, but not regarding content from Meeting 4. Participation inmeetings by participants and survey participants is indicated in Figure A.1 of the Appendix (availableonline at http://www.iwaponline.com/wp/016/001.pdf). Because the sample is not large enough to testfor statistical significance between sub-regions, all respondents’ answers are analyzed jointly.For the project consulting team, five main methods were used to assess learning. These included:

(1) content review of project meeting notes; (2) a focus group to debrief the project; (3) written sur-veys administered at the team debrief; (4) in-depth interviews with one member of each consultingorganization; and (5) participant observation at team meetings. For the Authority, two main methodswere used: attendance and observation at the Authority’s meetings and interviews with two key Auth-ority leaders.To trace learning and explore the mechanisms through which EJ outcomes may or may not occur, we

adapted Table 1 into an evaluative framework (Table 2) that assesses whether, and among which stake-holders, our hypothesized learnings occurred. Combining the qualitative results of our various methods,the table includes an indicator of whether the learning occurred (þ), did not occur (�), was not indicated(0), or was not applicable to this stakeholder group (NA).

5. Results

5.1. Single-loop learning: DACs, regional solutions, outreach and funding

We found evidence of two main types of single-loop learning across the three stakeholder groups.These included: learning about DACs and their water challenges, learning about regional solutions,and learning about how to outreach to DACs. Project participants discussed learning about the waterproblems across their sub-region. As one DAC community member noted: ‘[I realized] that we hadsome problems, but there were other people who have worse challenges than we do. So that was infor-mative to me…’ DAC stakeholders also noted that they not only learned about other DACs, but aboutthe many ‘resources that were in the room’. Agency representatives also encountered similar learning.One agency representative explained that even after many years of working on water access in commu-nities, she was surprised to learn about how many private well owner communities existed that she didnot previously know about.Members of the project team also mentioned learning more about water issues in DACs. Despite the

fact that the EJ advocacy and technical assistance providers work regularly with DACs, team membersnoted how the data collection process helped them understand the full array of problems faced by DACsin their region. In addition, during the focus group, two people mentioned that before the Study theywere not sure DACs even wanted to participate in IRWM or address their water problems. They learned,however, that DAC residents have an active interest in solving them. Thus all three stakeholder groupsexpressed shifts in their understanding of DACs.The second main type of single-loop learning was about regional solutions. Stakeholders from all

groups discussed learning about regional solutions and what it really takes to develop water solutionsbeyond an individual community project. In general, they noted that this learning occurred in twoways: through the content imparted at project meetings and through participation in the project. Oneproject participant explained how drinking water maps presented at meetings facilitated a regional

Table 2. Summary of key learnings indicated by each stakeholder group in relation to hypothesized learning outcomes.Learning noted if indicated during any of the data collection methods.

Kings Study project participants Project consulting teamKings BasinAuthority

Type of learning and finding DACs AgenciesEJ advocacyorganizations Engineers

Technicalassistance

EJadvocates Leaders

Single-loop learningLearning about DAC water

issues and interestsþ þ 0 þ þ 0 þ

Learning about regionalsolutions

þ þ þ þ 0 þ þ

Learning about how tooutreach to DACs

NA NA NA 0 þ 0 þ

Learning about funding � 0 þ 0 0 þ 0Double-loop learningReconsider role of regional

solutionsþ 0 0 0 0 þ þ

Reconsider type of supportDACs need (i.e. type ofprojects, capacity &education)

þ þ þ þ þ þ þ

Reconsider what types ofdecision-making (e.g.community-driven) cansupport DAC water planning

þ þ þ þ þ 0 0

Shifting actor networks (e.g.new relationships)

þ þ þ þ þ þ þ

Triple-loop learningIncreased DAC momentum/

involvementþ þ þ 0 þ þ 0

Changes to Kings BasinIRWM Authoritygovernance structures

þ 0 þ 0 þ þ þ

Actor network transformed þ 0 0 þ þ þ þþ¼ this learning was indicated; 0¼ learning not indicated; NA¼ not applicable to this stakeholder group, �¼ this learningwas noted as not occurring.

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120108

view of his county: ‘The maps… [identified] the DACs and [their] close proximity… When we weretalking about consolidation, it’s really good to have those visual tools there [so] if a community membersays, ‘We’re miles away.’ On a map really it’s 5 miles, [and] 5 miles isn’t that bad…’ Survey responsesamong project participants supported these interview results: 80% of respondents noted that their under-standing of the benefits of regional solutions increased, at least minimally, and 88% said theirunderstanding of IRWM increased, at least minimally (Figure 3).Authority stakeholders also noted that their view of how regional solutions could work and ‘what’s

possible’ expanded. One interviewee noted that, in the past, regional solutions such as consolidation ofwater systems had been viewed with skepticism by residents and water system operators. However,because the project team presented case studies of different regional solutions, this person learned that

Fig. 3. Tabulation of how much understanding of various single-loop learning factors increased for project participants(n¼ 25).

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120 109

‘joint solutions’ or ‘regional solutions’ could include a variety of forms, including physical or managerialconsolidation across systems. A second interviewee discussed his greater appreciation of regional workwhen he witnessed a local regional water project drawing on networks and resources to support one DAC.The third type of single-loop learning that occurred was with regard to how to outreach to DACs in

order to involve them in IRWM planning and governance. Here, some of the consulting team membersless versed in community outreach mentioned learning about outreach methods. The Authority intervie-wees also noted this learning. Interestingly, with the exception of one interviewee, none of theinterviewees noted learning about funding, although survey results among project participants showsome perceived learning in this regard. Specifically, 68% of surveyed participants said their understand-ing of how to access funding sources increased, at least minimally (Figure 3).

5.2. Double-loop learning: questioning the potential role of regional solutions, questioning assumptionsand developing networks

Four types of double-loop learning emerged. First, project participants built on their single-loop learningabout regional solutions and showed a true reconsideration of the role that regional solutions can play. Inthe Western Fresno sub-region, for example, project participants selected a pilot project that explored thepossibility of connecting Lanare, a DAC, to the City of Riverdale, a non-DAC. While participants fromapproximately four communities were present at Meeting 2, the group unanimously voted to develop thepilot for Lanare. This pilot selection exemplified a willingness on the part of project participants to con-sider regional solutions and support communities beyond their own. Two non-Lanare DAC stakeholdersnoted they were happy that the pilot went to the neediest community. What is more, one stakeholderexplained the utility of witnessing how a joint solution can be developed between communities:

‘One of our very first meetings, the Riverdale District Manager was there, and we had the Lanarepeople there. And I thought, ‘this is going to be a real heated argument.’ I was happy to see thatpeople maintained their composure and were willing to talk… And then the [consulting] groupdidn’t shy away from bringing them together, they could have taken a different approach, theydidn’t shy away, which I appreciated. They brought them together and so if you can bring them togetherand they cannot fight, in that first meeting, maybe that could work for the solution… The more they see

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120110

the Lanare people, the more Riverdale interacts with them, the more they’re going to be comfortablewith them and understand that they’re not asking for the moon, they’re asking for a partnership.’

Here this participant reflects on having seen how a DAC and a non-DAC can come together to workon a joint solution, and also appreciates the role of how a network of relationships (i.e. consulting group,DACs, non-DACs) can support the effort.The second type of learning focused on questioning the type of support DACs really need. One con-

sulting team member noted, ‘From an engineer’s perspective, I always think more sticks and bricks. ButI think what Community Water Center brought and Self-Help brought to the table is the idea that [aDAC project] may not be sticks and bricks, it may be something else, like a governance [project].’This shows that while engineers, and even members of the Authority, may have initially consideredthat DACs need physical engineering projects (i.e. ‘sticks and bricks’) to solve their water challenges,they learned that what DACs might really need is governance-oriented projects that can facilitateregional solutions. This broadening of perspectives occurred not only because DAC participantsasked for a different type of water solution, but because project team members helped facilitate newplanning ideas. As an example, project participants of the Northern Tulare sub-region selected ashared services analysis pilot project for their sub-region (see Chapter 2.4, CWC et al., 2013).Stakeholders identified two other forms of ‘DAC support’. At the Authority’s meetings, Authority

interviewees and members noted the need to provide technical support to DACs applying for funding.In addition, EJ advocates expressed the need to provide continued capacity and education for DACs, andnot just stop with the Kings Study alone. As one advocate noted: ‘We need to be able to not just say,‘Okay, well, how do we let communities know of this process and how do we engage them.’ It’s not justabout that, it’s about how do we build capacity so that people can be part of these regional planningefforts…’ A project participant added more details:

‘I really do think that the next step is to bring a lot of these folks that participated in this processtogether… let’s do some community [education] on IRWMPs and IRWMP processes and who arethe decision makers and where does the money come from, and who makes the decision, how areprojects scored, ranked, awarded. Let’s talk about how each local jurisdiction or regional partner-ship [can] move projects forward.’

The third type of double-loop learning that occurred was in terms of questioning guiding assumptionsregarding how planning and decision-making can occur in water management projects. This was reflectedin how all stakeholders came to appreciate the inclusive, community-driven decision-making processes thatthe project team used. To begin, DAC participants expressed appreciation for the Study’s more inclusiveplanning process that put DACs in the center. ThreeDAC interviewees noted that the spacewasmade inclus-ive through the creation of bilingual meeting spaces. Other DAC interviewees noted that the project’smeetings felt ‘safe’ because for the first time they saw engineers listening to them. They could tell thattheir thoughts and opinions were valued: ‘I was surprised that… Provost and Prichard… didn’t comethere just to talk to us. They came there to inform, and then also to listen to what we were saying.’In addition to feeling safe, several DAC stakeholders explained how the community meetings allowed

residents to learn from each other, and in this process develop more trust in different planning solutions.‘Usually we just worry about our one little town,’ one stakeholder noted. A non-Lanare resident said, ‘Ifothers see that a small area like Lanare has received positive reinforcement from this, [then] there’s a

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120 111

chance for [other DACs] too.’ Two DAC stakeholders implied that they trusted the teachings on regionalsolutions more when hearing Lanare residents share about their interest in a regional solution. Together,these comments highlight how the inclusive and collaborative spaces created by the project teamempowered DACs, allowed for more safety among DAC residents, promoted learning about new per-spectives and thus increased trust in different water planning solutions.DACs were not the only project participants that learned from a more inclusive form of decision-

making. One agency stakeholder described how the consensus-based planning process increased thelegitimacy of the chosen pilot project and gave more weight to community views on drinking water sol-utions. As a result of the community survey chosen by the Fresno/Clovis sub-region, she became moreaware of the community perspective on different water solutions and is now inspired to think ‘outsidethe box’ in how to address key public health issues in the community so that resident opinions are stillvalidated. As she said, ‘It kind of even changed my direction of emphasis of what an appropriate projectmight be… the very next day I was on the phone.’ Consulting team members also expressed appreci-ation for community-driven water planning. One team member noted how the survey was a model ofhow to have community participation:

‘The model… of finding key players and then deciding on a project, and then making sure that thecommunity’s participating in the project and… report out. [Because of that] this [was] probably themost successful pilot project…How do you engage people? How do you get people at the grassrootslevel? How do you get them educated so they can be that informed and engaged public with whatevertheir particular water issue is? I feel like the Easton pilot study wasn’t just for Easton, it was a devel-opment of a tool that we can use for other communities as well.’

In this sense, the act of listening and supporting community-led planning was transformative for typi-cally more ‘technocratic leaders’.The fourth type of double-loop learning was in terms of changes to existing actor networks. DAC

interviewees noted that they developed new relationships with other DACs and other governmentagency stakeholders. One participant noted, ‘I was able to meet people that I would never probablymeet in any other environment.’ Another said:

‘I think the fact that folks were there, interested in participating, sort of made me feel like, wow, thereis interest in working on these issues … There’s folks there who were really like, ‘‘We really want tofix this’.’ That made me want to work with them to fix it.’

One DAC leader noted that now she not only thinks about her community when going to water meet-ings but about all DACs: ‘I go to these meetings first because I think there’s some benefit for [my] city.But when I see the other communities, I want to see if there’s any way that we can be of assistance.’Another DAC leader noted that, building on the momentum of the pilot project in her sub-region, shehad made new connections with state-level professionals and she would now be writing a grant withthem to continue the work started in her community.Agency participants, the project team and the Authority leaders also noted a similar building of new

relationships with DAC leaders and acknowledged how the project drew on existing relationships tostrengthen the work. Among members of the consulting team, inter-team relationships solidified, andteam members noted that a more diverse network had developed. The team also appreciated how they

Fig. 4. How much interest and trust in neighboring communities and/or government agencies increased (n¼ 25).

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120112

helped transform existing regional networks by drawing on their existing professional relationships.For example, when commenting on the Lanare-Riverdale pilot project, consulting members notedthat this type of regional work was possible because representatives from both communities were pre-sent at the sub-region meetings and the consulting team members built on their own relationships ineach community to facilitate the process. What is more, the project team recognized that in the most‘successful’ pilot projects, part of why outreach had gone well was because the consulting team couldbuild on previous relationships in the area. Finally, while not directly expressed amongst EJ advocatesand Authority members, observations of Kings IRWM Authority meetings highlighted important dia-logue and growing connections between EJ advocates, DAC leaders and Basin Authority leaders andmembers.Despite positive indications of expansion of networks and new inter-connections across stakeholder

groups, the survey results indicate some important nuances (Figure 4). First, 17 out of 25 respondents(68%) noted that their interest in collaborating with neighboring communities increased, or increased alot, generally paralleling interviewee responses. However, when asked about how much their trust hadincreased in neighboring communities and local agencies/government as a result of the project, thesepercentages were lower; only 32% and 20% of respondents said it had increased, or increased a lot,respectively. This indicates that while there was an increase in trust, not all participants experiencedthis, and that trust in local government/entities was not as great as that in their neighboring communities.

5.3. Triple-loop learning: towards change and longer-term learning

Triple-loop learning involves a changing of the underlying structural context, and a transformation ofcurrent governance regime limitations and actor networks. These processes take time, something whicha 1-year project such as the Kings Study could not provide. Even so, our evidence suggests early move-ment towards the triple-loop learning outcomes hypothesized in Table 1. This was evidenced in threemain ways: the desire to continue developing momentum for DAC participation in IRWM, an acknowl-edgment that structural changes to the Authority’s governance structure are necessary, and early signs ofactor network transformations.To begin, all three stakeholder groups articulated that continued DAC participation would ensure

improved representation, access to funding and incorporation of DACs in IRWM. As one participant

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120 113

noted, ‘now that there is a final report discussing DAC needs… there’s a living document [and] we have touse it… [because] it brings DACs to the forefront… [and using it will ensure] that it gets engrained in their[i.e. IRWMmembers] heads’. Project participants expressed that their participationwas not for themere sakeof increased representation, but to gain access to funding sources that could help DACs develop sustainablewater solutions. DAC participants and EJ advocacy participants anticipated that as regional representationand participation increased, DAC projects would become more competitive in the funding cycles:‘They’re [i.e. Authority members] going to be thinking, ‘Well they got their stuff together.’ And soyou’re going to get those votes when it comes to bringing your application. [So] you can’t sit on the sidelines right now. You gotta get something in the queue so they don’t forget you…’

But funding is not only an end-goal. One advocate noted:

‘Funding should be allocated to continue to build the capacity of DAC members to meaningfully par-ticipate in IRWM planning. This could mean a DAC coordinator or providing technical assistance sothat DAC projects can compete with others. At the same time, meaningful participation by DAC mem-bers with the right assistance can help reform structural challenges that have prevented participationin the first place.’

Another EJ advocate noted that DAC voices need to plug in to the regional level: ‘[Their] voice has tobe within the region. Because that’s the way the state of California is going, everyone’s for regionalsolutions. If the DACs aren’t at the table, at the regional table, they’re not going to be heard.’ Thesecomments reflect an understanding of how the cycle of continued participation will improve accessto funding and representation in general.DAC participants and EJ advocates also stressed that DACs still need to engage more directly in the

governance structure of the Authority to ensure lasting equity. Some project participants gave concretesuggestions. One DAC advocate noted:

‘We’ve kind of given them [i.e. DACs] that exposure to IRWM. But now how do you maintain themomentum, how do you maintain the participation? Who’s going to be a representative? That’swhere you really need to have a nice concerted effort to really keep them at that table there…’

Three interviewees noted that less-organized DACs should choose one representative to represent sev-eral communities at Authority meetings. They explained that this would build trust amongstcommunities, and a greater understanding of regional planning in more communities.Despite these important movements towards triple-loop learning, stakeholders discussed how specific

structural and social changes must occur to enable lasting DAC participation. Several stakeholdersexplained the importance of having a welcoming space for DACs: ‘Some of these meetings are tedious,and very technical and complex…what we need… is to make sure people feel comfortable and it’s awelcoming environment for folks who’ve never participated in any of these processes.’ A few interview-ees discussed that deeper cultural shifts will also need to occur. For example, obvious and tacitanimosity still exists between different water interest groups towards DACs – this was evident at Auth-ority meetings when some members made dismissive comments regarding DACs, talking about ‘thosepeople’ or said in frustration that DACs were ‘going to take more than their fair-share of the fundingpie’. Such comments signal a fear that increased participation of DACs will limit the funding forothers, a general competition between water interests (e.g. agricultural versus DACs) and a lack of

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120114

sensitivity towards DACs. In the end, DACs noted that such comments reflected an ongoing concernthat these spaces are still not hospitable to historically disenfranchised IRWM stakeholders.DAC leaders also expressed a feeling that the Kings Study was only a first step in supporting DAC

participation. One DAC leader noted that while the Study was beneficial he still felt uncertain about howto proceed: ‘What can we do from here on? What’s the next step? Can we get help again to do some-thing similar?’ Another DAC leader noted that she did not feel empowered or hopeful about the KingsStudy:

‘Well, they did give me good information… but, who am I? I’m not a politician, I’m not the onethat’s going to [give] the green light to these projects… That kind of information needs to beshared with people that are up there to support these projects… they’ve done so many studies, somany studies, and I just feel like, okay, this was another study, but are they really going to runwith it?… I’m talking about those on top, are they really serious about this?’

In her frustration she was noting that while the ‘shared solutions’ pilot project for her sub-region wasuseful, it will only be truly useful if decision-makers take it seriously and act on it. Later, this leaderexpressed a desire for ‘outsiders’ to help move this work forward, not the ‘same old interests’. Inessence, she highlighted a lack of trust that existing decision-makers could really implement regionalchanges, and a desire for power structures to become more responsive.Ultimately, DAC stakeholders asked for true transformation of governance structures to ensure that

existing barriers to equitable representation and funding processes were surpassed. This is best exempli-fied through a collective action taken by a coalition of EJ organizations, including several involved inthe Kings Study. During the Study implementation, representatives from nine EJ organizations sent aletter to the Department of Water Resources regarding ongoing challenges that DACs were facingthroughout the state, including lack of representation within IRWMs, inability to access fundingpools and overly technical environments that resulted in marginalization (CRLAF et al., 2013). Onesignee from the Kings Basin explained the impetus for the letter:

‘We got the state to give us money [for the Kings Study], and yet when it came down to [the Authority]scoring projects and selecting projects…we had to advocate just as strongly as we did with any otherIRWM in the region… That was a red flag. It was like, if our efforts aren’t paying off in an area, in anIRWMwhere they’vemade the commitment, there’s been the investment [e.g. the Study], then what doesthis mean?… It’s concerning when we got $500,000 to our region and [the Authority] still doesn’t ade-quately include any DAC pilots in their final [application], and [the Authority’s] members are sayingthings like, ‘…We don’t have an issue in you doing outreach and informing the communities, but youcan’t be bringing us tons of projects. If we fund one, they’re all going to come to us.’’

Here, the person felt that during the competition for funding, the Authority’s membership was gen-erally not supportive of DACs, despite the funding cycle occurring during the implementation of theStudy. Upon observing similar frustrations across the state, EJ groups decided to convene a call anddraw up a letter:

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120 115

‘We said enough. We need to document what are the common challenges for DACs to engage… Fun-damentally, the letter questioned the willingness of the [Authority] and other IRWMs to addressfundamental changes in funding opportunities…’

In response to the letter the Authority convened several meetings with DACs, EJ groups and Auth-ority members to discuss how to address the root of these governance challenges. Before one suchmeeting one Authority interviewee explained, ‘What we’re doing is changing, change is not alwaysan easy thing’. From his perspective, the Authority was trying to address true change within the Auth-ority. Authority interviewees expressed their support for change in several ways. First, theyacknowledged the need to incorporate information about DACs into their governing documents andannual reports so that this information could be used when making funding decisions. Second, anotherAuthority interviewee noted that the Authority needed to keep bringing people to the table to work onthese issues. Third, the Authority leaders convened a DAC-specific meeting. At this meeting, IRWMmembers and interested parties discussed the idea of designating a DAC Regional Coordinator and aDAC working group to support outreach and engagement, and provide pre-application assistance toDACs to make their applications for funding more competitive. Towards the end of the Study theAuthority’s budget sub-group began exploring how to develop a feasible fee structure to encourageDAC participation. One DAC advocate noted how ‘at a recent meeting a voting member said shehad never envisioned a different process, but is now supportive of the new fee structure’. In sum, despitetense exchanges and some lack of belief on the part of EJ organizations that the Authority could trulychange, during the course of the Kings Study and soon after, early actions began to develop in this direc-tion, thus indicating potential for triple-loop learning. As the Study’s Final Report concludes, ‘DACstakeholders and IRWM members will need to work together to help ensure that DACs are being reg-ularly engaged and have meaningful opportunities to engage with the IRWMP planning, funding andgovernance processes’ (CWC et al., 2013: 117).Finally, interviewees suggested early movement towards transformation of actor networks. For

example, one DAC participant described how one local water leader had changed over the last fewyears and seemed more aware and engaged with DAC issues. ‘He’s a lot… quieter now, he’s listeningmore. I do see change… I can see his demeanor has really changed.’ Because of that, she explained howothers who had been historically less supportive of DAC water interests now acted differently in meet-ings because they followed this leader’s changed demeanor.

6. Conclusion

Our case study of the Kings Basin Disadvantaged Community Pilot Study used a social learning fra-mework to assess the types of learning and associated EJ implications. Overall, the Study affordedmultiple moments for multi-level learning within and among the three stakeholder groups. Single-loop learning emerged in the form of increased information and awareness of DAC water issues andregional solutions. Double-loop learning occurred as DACs learned from each other and incorporatedshort-term actions at the community scale, as agency representatives, consultants and Authority leadersincorporated this learning into their work, and as regional solutions were considered. Early signs oftriple-loop learning were evident, though adoption of lasting structural changes is, at best, only justbeginning.

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120116

In tracing this inter and intra-level learning, a framework emerges for evaluating how learning andparticipation can result in IRWM that incorporates DACs, regional solutions and EJ principles. Thesingle-loop learning that occurred resulted in dissemination of important information – awareness ofIRWM increased among DAC participants, and other stakeholder groups can better understand DACchallenges. But this information alone cannot result in lasting change. Instead, double-loop learningholds more promise. The Study’s planning and decision-making processes (i.e. consensus and collectiveprocesses at project meetings) helped stakeholders realize that different types of regional solutions arepossible, even if such solutions still require continued support. Other types of double-loop learningexhibited indicated that networks are changing: project participants were more aware that they couldrely on each other. While DACs may feel more trusting of other DACs, enough participants expresseda desire to build on and access new relationships with government agencies.But, as Pahl-Wostl notes, much ‘double-loop learning can only be effective if accompanied by triple-

loop learning’ (Pahl-Wostl, 2009: 359) since the dominant paradigm can often only shift if the under-lying structural context is in question. This is echoed by the call of critical EJ scholars to examine therole of politics and power in the ‘hydrosocial landscape’ (Zwarteveen & Boelens 2014; Perreault 2014;Swyngedouw 2005). While lasting triple-loop learning and related changes have not taken root, theearly signs of movement suggest that there is reason to be optimistic for DACs in the Kings Basin:that is, if the structural changes being promoted by DAC stakeholders and advocates (i.e. access to fund-ing and equitable participation and governance) are implemented, and if the Authority continues itscommitment towards this end. Similarly, if actor networks continue to transform, members of theIRWM group may themselves work increasingly to support DAC needs.But the road for this to happen will require work. DACs need continued outreach and pathways for

meaningful representation, capacity-building and education to support their funding applications andparticipation, and changes to governance structures that address, among other things, the economicconstraints of membership requirements. In addition, deeper cultural shifts are still necessary todevelop trust and understanding across different interest groups participating in the Kings Basin Auth-ority. As Lubell (2004) notes, only time will show whether and how impactful a project such as theKings Study is in leading to lasting structural change. At first glance, however, due to continued DACadvocacy and responsive Authority leadership, the Authority continues to work towards triple-looplearning.Similar learning results are reflected in the few existing cases that explore related topics. Torres

(2013) evaluated two DAC-focused inclusionary planning processes that, among other things, used cul-turally appropriate language and frames, and dialogue between technical experts and communities. Theprocesses helped DAC residents learn about IRWM planning, feel included and listened to, and developcommunity-driven solutions (Torres, 2013). This echoes the single and double-loop learning in ourstudy, though not framed as such. While triple-loop learning is not discussed as directly, Torres con-cludes by promoting inclusionary engagement, which includes hiring a community-based outreachcoordinator and continuing to work on securing funds. Dolan’s assessment of Tribal collaborationand inclusion in IRWM highlights recommendations for improved collaboration (Dolan, 2013). Corerecommendations include: greater Tribal participation in the development of IRWM plans, Tribal par-ticipation in the governance structure of IRWM groups, and more support for funding andimplementation of Tribal-led IRWM projects. Additionally, Dolan recommends improving outreachto Tribes, and having Tribal liaisons conduct outreach and collaboration approaches. While these

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120 117

structural recommendations are particular to Tribes, they are reminiscent of the ‘third-loop learning’requirements advocated by EJ advocates in the Kings Study9.Our results are timely for California water policy efforts. While the stated goal of the Kings Study was

to improve outreach and participation of DACs, we highlight the importance of social learning. Policy-makers should understand that it is not enough to simply increase access to information about or par-ticipation of DACs; double and triple-loop learning are necessary to incorporate the needs of DACs in alasting manner. Ultimately, these changes must occur across all IRWM regions, and make their wayupstream to the state level. As EJ groups noted in their letter to the Department, state-level policymust support regional solutions since IRWM is expected to play an increasingly core role in the manage-ment of California’s water resources, the funding of regional water projects, and the support of regionalcollaboration. For this reason, the need to continue developing the DAC-focused social learning high-lighted in this paper is essential.That so much learning occurred in such a short time-frame has important implications for future

DAC-oriented programs. First, the format of the Study highlights a structure for participation andchange; the direct outreach to and involvement of DACs in a planning process led to increased learningand engagement of DACs in IRWM. Thus, this type of pilot study can be viewed as a model to developtechnical support for and participation of DACs. However, the Study occurred after years of importantgroundwork between DAC advocates and the Authority. Thus it is important to recognize the invest-ment of time and relationships required for learning and change to occur. While additional researchis needed to further evaluate the potential for IRWM to develop meaningful engagement, our studysuggests that continued inclusionary engagement in water planning can serve as a vehicle for learningand continued change in water governance structures, as echoed in Torres’ (2013) findings.Our study also has important implications for the IWRM and environmental justice literature. Our

paper highlights how an expanded social learning framework can incorporate questions of proceduraljustice relevant to EJ. Social learning becomes an explicit mechanism linking participation to EJ out-comes. In witnessing co-occurring learning across stakeholder groups, we believe the results indicatehow systemic change can occur as various networks participate and begin to transform. This is particu-larly important for the EJ literature which tends to emphasize the impact of participation for under-represented groups alone.Our study was, however, based on a single case. Future research that assesses all seven pilots com-

prehensively would be instructive. This would add a comparative lens, and reduce any potential forinsider bias. While our results are echoed in similar cases, a wider survey effort of all pilots wouldenable corroboration of these preliminary findings, especially given our small sample size in thesurvey. In addition, our study did not assess a major structural impediment for DACs – funding. Fewparticipants commented on learning about how to access funding, thus future research should further

9 Final Reports from two of the other seven DAC Pilot Studies indirectly highlight some issues relevant to structural changes inIRWM. For example, the pilot in the Coachella Valley recommends modifying project selection requirements in an effort toimprove access to funding for DACs. Our future research will further assess the lessons learned from all seven pilot regions.As of July 2014, Final reports were available for Greater Los Angeles County and Coachella Valley. See: DisadvantagedCommunity Outreach Evaluation Study: An Analysis of Technical Assistance and Outreach Methods, Council for WatershedHealth, 2014 (http://watershedhealth.org/programsandprojects/dac.aspx) and Final Volume II: Disadvantaged Communities:2014 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group,2014 (http://www.cvrwmg.org/docs/2014_02_25_CVRWMG-2014DACOutreachProgramReport_100200.pdf).

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120118

explore this topic. Finally, an assessment of changes over time would be helpful in assessing futuretriple-loop learning.While our case emphasizes the importance of IRWM that meets DAC needs, it is important to

recognize that California’s IRWM program is not the sole pathway for developing sustainableDAC water solutions. Harter et al. (2012) discuss a number of broad regulatory, policy and fundingoptions that are relevant to supporting DACs in the Kings Basin and beyond. These include: (1) aSmall Water System Task Force that reports on problems and solutions for small water systems10;(2) continued support for regional consolidation from the California Drinking Water Program andcounties; (3) a stable fund for small systems to access; and (4) the use of fertilizer and water usefees to raise revenue for safe drinking water actions. Similarly, the Kings Final Report notes,‘Though the IRWM program can play a significant role for DACs, the majority of funding will beneeded from other programs [e.g. State Drinking Water Program] even if future bond funding forthe IRWM program occurs’ (CWC et al., 2013: 120)11. It is our perspective that two truths mustbe held in one hand: in order for triple-loop learning to emerge, IRWM governance and fundingstructures must continue to develop approaches to engage and support DACs. At the same timeDAC water needs, including regional collaboration, need to be supported through additional fundingstreams, state agencies and legislative efforts. In sum, our case study suggests that we have reason tobe cautiously optimistic. However, concerted momentum on the ground must continue to push for thestructural changes necessary, and future research must continue to track these structural changes overtime in the Kings Basin.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the entire Kings Basin Study team, including Eric Osterling (Kings Basin Auth-ority), Lon Martin and Heather Bashian (Provost & Pritchard), Paul Boyer and Sue Ruiz (Self HelpEnterprises), Maria Herrera, Laurel Firestone, Susana de Anda, Abigail Solis and Selgie Arroyo (Com-munity Water Center) for their work on the Kings Basin Study and their overall support. In particular,the authors acknowledge the insights and support of colleague Maria Herrera on earlier versions of thispaper. A preliminary evaluation included in the Kings Basin Final Report was the initial foundation forthis broader paper; we thank the Kings Basin Study team for supporting this next round of research. Wethank the dozens of community leaders, residents and government agency representatives (includingCDPH and Fresno County) that participated in the Kings Basin Study and participated in the evaluation.Francisca Henriquez provided valuable research assistance. We acknowledge the Kings Basin Authorityand the Department of Water Resources for funding the DAC Pilot Study and supporting learning howto improve IRWM. Funding for the research was provided by the Robert and Patricia SwitzerFoundation and the UC Presidential Postdoctoral Fellowship.

10 This effort is currently underway as the Governor’s Drinking Water Stakeholder Group.11 For example, the Department of Water Resource’s Facilitation Services Grants support facilitation between stakeholders. TheState Drinking Water State Revolving Fund’s Local Assistance Set-Asides and Consolidation Promotion Incentives could alsobe helpful for supporting consolidation efforts (CWC et al., 2013).

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120 119

References

Balazs, C., Morello-Frosch, R., Hubbard, A. & Ray, I. (2011). Social disparities in nitrate-contaminated drinking water in Cali-fornia’s San Joaquin valley. Environmental Health Perspectives 119(9), 1272–1278.

Balazs, C., Morello-Frosch, R., Hubbard, A. & Ray, I. (2012). Environmental justice implications of arsenic contamination inCalifornia’s San Joaquin valley: a cross-sectional, cluster-design examining exposure and compliance in community drinkingwater systems. Environmental Health 11(84), 1–12.

Berkes, F. & Folke, C. (2001). Back to the future: ecosystem dynamics and local knowledge. In: Panarchy: Understanding Trans-formations in Human and Natural System. Gunderson, L. & Holling, C. S. (eds). Island Press, Washington, pp. 121–146.

Brown, R. (1998). Toward a Democratic Science: Scientific Narration and Civic Communication. Yale University Press.Brulle, R. (2000). Agency, Democracy, and Nature: The U.S. Environmental Movement from a Critical Theory Perspective. 1stedn, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

California Water Code §79505.5(a) (No. California Water Code, Division 16.5, Chapter 1). (2009).CDWR (California Department of Water Resources) (2005). California Water Plan, Update 2005 (No. DWR Bulletin 160-05).California Department of Water Resources.

CDWR (California Department of Water Resources) (2012). Integrated Regional Water Management Grant Program Prop. 84and IE Guidelines. California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Water Resources and Division of IntegratedRegional Water Management.

Cole, L. & Foster, S. (2000). From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Move-ment. NYU Press, New York.

CRLAF (California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation), Asociación de Gente Unida por el Agua, Community Water Center,Clean Water Action, Unión de Vecinos, Pueblo Unido, San Jerardo Cooperative, Lamont Public Utility District, Environ-mental Justice Coalition for Water, & California Rural Legal Assistance (2013). Re: Integrated Regional WaterManagement Grant Program (IRWM). Letter.

CWC (Community Water Center), Provost & Pritchard & Self-Help Enterprises (2013). Final Report: Kings Basin Water Auth-ority Disadvantaged Community Pilot Project Study. California Department of Water Resources.

Dolan, D. V. (2013). Tribal Collaboration in IRWM: Challenges, Solutions, and Recommendations. Final Report of the IRWMTribal Collaboration Effectiveness Study to the Department of Water Resources, IRWM Division, University of California,Davis. http://ccrec.ucsc.edu/sites/default/files/CCREC%20Research%20Report%202%20Tribal%20Collab%20in%20IRWM.pdf.

Evans, S. & Boyte, H. (1986). Free Spaces: The Sources of Democratic Change in America. University of Chicago Press,Chicago, IL.

Governor’s Drinking Water Stakeholder Group (2012). Final Report to the Governor’s Office: Agreements and Legislative Rec-ommendations. California State Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety & Toxic Materials.

Harter, T., Lund, J., Darby, J., Fogg, G., Howitt, R., Jessoe, K., Pettygrove, G., Quinn, J., Viers, J., Boyle, D., Canada, H.,DeLaMora, N., Dzurella, K., Fryjoff-Hung, A., Hollander, A., Honeycutt, K., Jenkins, M., Jensen, V., King, A., Kourakos,G., Liptzin, D., Lopez, E., Mayzelle, M., McNally, A., Medellin-Azuara, J. & Rosenstock, T. (2012). Addressing Nitrate inCalifornia’s Drinking Water with a Focus on Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley Groundwater (Report for the State WaterResources Control Board Report to the Legislature). Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California, Davis.

Honeycutt, K., Canada, H. E., Jenkins, M. W. & Lund, J. R. (2012). Alternative Water Supply Options for Nitrate Contami-nation. Technical Report 7 in: Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water with A Focus on Tulare Lake Basin andSalinas Valley Groundwater. Report for the State Water Resources Control Board to the Legislature. Center for WatershedSciences, University of California, Davis.

Joss, S. & Brownlea, A. (1999). Considering the concept of procedural justice for public policy and decision-making in scienceand technology. Science and Public Policy 26, 321–330.

KBWA (Kings Basin Water Authority) (2012). Kings Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. http://www.krcd.org/water/ukbirwma/docs_gov.html.

Lubell, M. (2004). Collaborative environmental institutions: all talk and no action? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management23(3), 549–573.

Lubell, M. & Edelenbos, J. (2013). Integrated water resources management: a comparative laboratory for water governance.International Journal of Water Governance 1(3–4), 177–196.

C. L. Balazs and M. Lubell / Water Policy 16 (2014) 97–120120

Lubell, M. & Lippert, L. (2011). Integrated regional water management: a study of collaboration or water politics-as-usual inCalifornia, USA. International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(1), 76–100.

Pahl-Wostl, C. (2002a). Participative and stakeholder-based policy design, evaluation and modeling process. Integrated Assess-ment 3(1), 3–14.

Pahl-Wostl, C. (2002b). Towards sustainability in the water sector – the importance of human actors and processes of sociallearning. Aquatic Sciences 64, 394–411.

Pahl-Wostl, C. (2006). The importance of social learning in restoring the multifunctionality of rivers and floodplains. Ecologyand Society 11(1), 10. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art10.

Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resourcegovernance regimes. Global Environmental Change 19(3), 354–265.

Pahl-Wostl, C. & Hare, M. (2004). Processes of social learning in integrated resources management. Journal of Community andApplied Social Psychology 14, 193–206.

Pahl-Wostl, C., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Tábara, D. & Taillieu, T. (2007a). Social learning and water resourcesmanagement. Ecology and Society 12(2).

Pahl-Wostl, C., Tábara, D., Bouwen, R., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Ridder, D. & Taillieu, T. (2007b). The importanceof social learning and culture for sustainable water management. Ecological Economics 3–12, 484–495.

Perreault, T. (2014). What kind of governance for what kind of equity? Towards a theorization of justice in water governance.Water International 39(2), 233–245.

Principles of Environmental Justice (1992). Presented at the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit.Priscoli, J. (2004). What is public participation in water resources management and why is it important? Water International

29(2), 1–7.Rhodes, R. (1997). Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Reflexivity and Accountability. Open University Press, Buck-

ingham, UK.Schlosberg, D. (2003). The justice of environmental justice: reconciling equity, recognition, and participation in a political

movement. In: Moral and Political Reasoning in Environmental Practice. Light, A. & deShalit, A. (eds). MIT Press, Cam-bridge, MA, pp. 78–106.

Shrader-Frechette, K. (2002). Environmental Justice: Creating Equity, Reclaiming Democracy. Oxford University Press,New York.

Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Dispossessing H20: The contested terrain of water privatization. Capitalism Nature Socialism 16(1),81–98.

Torres, M. (2013). Engaging Disadvantaged Communities in Resource Management. Report prepared for The San Gabriel andLower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy. Los Angeles, CA, http://issuu.com/alcanza/docs/alcanza_report-final.

United Nations General Assembly (2011). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Safe Drinking Water andSanitation. UN Human Rights Council, www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/18session/A-HRC-18-33-Add4_en.pdf, accessed 8 September 2014.

Winter, S. (1996). The ‘Power’ thing. Virginia Law Review 82(5), 721–835.Zwarteveen, M. Z. & Boelens, R. (2014). Defining, researching and struggling for water justice: some conceptual building

blocks for research and action. Water International 39(2), 143–158.