Urban communities, farms, businesses, and natural ecosystems depend upon adequate, reliable, and affordable supplies of clean water. As populations and economies grow and as climatic changes alter both water supply and demand, traditional options for meeting freshwater needs are becoming less available, reliable, and effective. As we approach peak water constraints on traditional water supplies, more efforts needed to reduce water demands through a wide range of conservation and efficiency technologies and policies, and to develop alternative, non-traditional water sources. A key factor in the adoption of these strategies is their economic feasibility; yet, only limited and often confusing data are available on their relative costs. To fill this gap, this analysis evaluates the costs of four groups of alternatives for urban supply and demand based on data and analysis in the California context: stormwater capture; water recycling and reuse; brackish and seawater desalination; and a range of water conservation and efficiency measures. We also describe some important co-benefits or avoided costs, such as reducing water withdrawals from surface water bodies or polluted runoff in coastal waterways. While difficult to quantify, such benefits are economically relevant, and we highlight areas where further research and analysis are needed to improve estimates presented here. All of the wateruse efficiency options are far less costly than traditional or alternative supply systems with the exception of some of the most expensive landscape water reduction options. The water treatment and reuse systems and the urban stormwater capture projects are more costly per unit of water produced but still less expensive than seawater desalination-the most expensive option evaluated.

No abstract

This paper is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and the arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD countries. The publication of this document has been authorised by Ken Ash, Director of the Trade and Agriculture Directorate. This paper and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

Gene editing (GE) technologies are rapidly gaining traction as an alternative to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture. While proponents claim the critical need for GE to address climate change and food security and assert its similarity to conventional breeding, critics argue that these technologies bring similar concerns to GMOs, such as supporting industrial agriculture and enhancing corporate control and ownership. But how do public groups make sense of these technologies? While incorporating public concerns is key to responsible and ethical innovation, minimal research explores how people make sense of emerging applications. We offer an exploratory Q study that investigates how one public group applies interpretive frames to understand applications of novel GE and related technologies. We find participants apply three different frames, invoking applications as (1) necessitating a system critical lens, (2) worthy of pragmatic of consideration, or (3) a deeply ambiguous prospect. These frames, we argue, articulate visions of particular sociotechnical futures, most of which are contrary or orthogonal to proponents’ assumptions. Instead, we find participants concerned less with the precision of techniques or the origin of genes used and more often with whether these applications reify dominant industrial practices and if viable alternatives exist.