1. Examining Perceptions of E-Governance Participation in Public
Management and Water Conservation
The E-Water Gap
Brandon F. De Bruhl
Masters of Public Policy and Masters of Science in Analytics
Emily Chen (Yix
Masters of Public Policy
Rhett Parnaey
Masters of Public Policy and Masters of Planning
Prepared for the 2015 Los Angeles Symposium hosted at the RAND Corporation and Sponsored by the Price School of Public Policy

2. Finalist in the Fels Policy Challenge
Policy Solution:
LA Saves – A Water Engagement
E-Governance Platform.
Contest Award:
$5,000
Neubauer Gant Award:
$3,700
Total Funding:
$8,700
1 Introduction

3. Water is a California Problem
2 Background
Provided by the
United States
Geological Service
and the National
Geospatial Institute
for Resource
Management,
University of
California, Berkeley.

4. Los Angeles Water Management
(MWD,SCE and LADWP)
3 Background
Courtesy of the
Metropolitan
Water District,
Southern
California Edison
and the Los
Angeles County
Department of
Power and
Water.
Number of Water
Districts:
27
Individuals Served
6.7 Million
Number of Combined
Administrative
Offices:
114

5. Internal Water E-Government Practices
(Research Questions)
4 Project

6. Digital Governance in LA
(Status Quo)
5 Project

7. Capturing Public Administration of Water
(Methodical Approach)
6 Project

8. Survey Instruments
(Convince Sampling)
Data Collection
Survey Instrument:
Technical Panel:
Water Engineers
Administrative Panel:
Water Program Managers
Expert Elicitation
Policy Panel
City Officials
Water District Officials
Data Sources
Baseline Data:
Santa Catalina Company
(Southern California Edison)
Data Collection Participants:
Southern California Edison
Metropolitan Water District
Los Angeles Water and Power
7 Analysis

9. Multi-Attribute Utility Theory
(Decision Model)
Attributes Evaluated
Technological Perception of
E-Governance in Utility Score.
Administrative Perception of
E-Governance in Utility Score.
Policy Perceptions of E-
Governance in Utility Score.
Cost of a Internal E-
Governance System*.
8 Analysis
The decision process for water policy adoption.

10. Informing Water Governance
(Expected Results)
9 Analysis
Outcome One: Inform Decision Makers
Providing a Framework for Public Water Decision Makers to
understand and leverage e-governance in water.
Outcome Two: A Vehicle for Political Dialog
To provide a point of discussion to State and Municipal leaders
around the use of e-governance as a way to improve water
management.
Outcome Three: E-Governance Preference in Public Utilities
To open the public policy dialog around the use of e-governance in
the public utility space.

11. Limitations & Sensitivity
Sensitivity
Sensitivity Outside the Context of LA County
Value is Sensitive to Water Availability
Cost
Technology
Limitations of the Project
Sampling Bias
Omitted Variable Bias
Constrained by Time and Geography
Utility Score is only Represents the Values of Participants
9 Analysis

12. Brandon F. De Bruhl
Masters of Public Policy and Masters of Science in Analytics
Emily Chen
Masters of Public Policy
Rhett Parnaey
Masters of Public Policy and Masters of Planning
Prepared for the 2015 Los Angeles Symposium hosted at the RAND Corporation and Sponsored by the Price School of Public Policy
A Special Thank you to….
Daniel A. Mazmanian Ph.D
Academic Director, USC Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy
Diane Yoder Ph.D
Professional Practice of Public Administration