United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA/600/R-15/141
June 2015
www.epa.gov/water-research
National Water Infrastructure
Adaptation Assessment
Part I: Climate Change Adaptation
Readiness Analysis
Office of Research and Development
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
-------
EPA/600/R-15/141
National Water Infrastructure Adaptation Assessment
Part I: Climate Change Adaptation Readiness Analysis
by
Steven Buchberger
University of Cincinnati, Department of Civil and Construction Engineering
Cincinnati, Ohio
Y. Jeffrey Yang, Joseph McDonald, James Goodrich
US EPA, Office of Research and Development
Cincinnati, Ohio
Laurie Potter, Laura Blake, Julie Blue, Donna Jensen,
Patricia Hertzler, Robert Clark
Environmental Engineering and Public Health Consultant
9627 Lansford Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio
Walter Grayman
Grayman Consulting Engineers
Cincinnati, Ohio
EPA Contract No. EP-C-11-006
Task Order No. 13
Y. Jeffrey Yang, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE
Task Order Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
June 2015
-------
DISCLAIMER
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, through its Office of Research and Development,
conducted, funded and managed the research described herein. The report "National Water
Infrastructure Adaptation Assessment: Part I - Climate Change Adaptation Readiness Analysis",
EPA/600/R-15/138, has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has
been approved for external publication. Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency, therefore, no official endorsement
should be inferred. Any mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our
ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks
from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of
pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and groundwater; prevention and control
of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public
and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to
anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental
problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and
providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the EPA Office of Research and Development
(ORD) research programs, conforming to the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It
is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Cynthia Sonich-Mullin, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
- in-
-------
PREFACE
Water is essential to life. Uneven distribution of population and water resources in the
world results in more than 1.1 billion people with a lack of access to clean drinking water and 2.6
billion people deprived of adequate water sanitation. Today fresh water is being consumed at an
alarming rate almost doubling every 20 years. Global climate change further exacerbates this
already stressed situation. Thus water availability becomes not only a problem for developing
countries, but one faced by developed nations that are now saddled with an aging water
infrastructure. Pressed by water resource challenges, however, civilizations have always found
innovative solutions to meet water resource needs and adapt to evolving social and
environmental conditions. This spirit of adaptation continues to this day and will continue into
the future.
One of the most complex challenges facing our nation today revolves around water
supply sustainability, many times in the context of water-energy-climate nexus. The challenge is
acute in light of occurring and future climate changes and rapid socioeconomic developments.
Sustainable solutions to the challenge require a holistic management approach for the water
sustainability issues. For this purpose, interdisciplinary research and developments are often a
first step toward supplementing and improving current water management and engineering
practice.
The national water infrastructure adaptation reports synthesize the results of
multidisciplinary research and development conducted during the past six years. These reports
present the conditions and readiness for adaptation of our nation's water infrastructure,
characterize hydroclimatic provinces and future climate conditions, and further introduce the
means to develop quantitative science basis for adapting water infrastructures. This systematic
adaptation approach is structured in multiple levels from urban-scale planning to individual
water engineering processes. A suite of developed tools, ranging from strategic master planning,
to watershed modeling and water plant adaptive engineering, have been developed and are
illustrated with case studies in the reports.
Considering the specialized needs of technical managers, the adaptation reports are
structured with necessary theoretical deliberations, technical details, and illustrated by case
studies. The focus is on developing actionable science and engineering basis, a subject pertinent
to technical managers and other stakeholders who face technical complexity of climate change
adaptation. While providing a wide range of technical data and information, these reports only
mark a beginning of the long march toward the goal of sustainable water resources and resilient
infrastructures.
Dr. Y. Jeffrey Yang, P.E., D.WRE Dr. Thomas F. Speth, P.E.
EPA/ORD/WSWRD Director, EPA/ORD/WSWRD
- IV-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Research and
Development (ORD), funded and managed, and partially conducted the research described
herein. The research was a part of the ORD Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) research program
and the ORD Safe and Sustainable Water Resources (SSWR) program. It was implemented by
the USEPA Water Resources Adaptation Program (WRAP), by Pegasus Technical Services, Inc.
through EPA Contract EP-C-05-056 and by Cadmus Inc. through the contract EP-C-06-100.
Programmatic guidance from ORD's Aging Water Infrastructure program and also from
the Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) and Sustainable and Safe Water Resources (SSWR) research
programs is acknowledged. Special thanks are due to Karen Metchis, Jeff Peterson, Curt
Baranowski, Elizabeth Corr, Robert Cantilli, Rachelle Novak and Elana Goldstein of the EPA
Office of Water for their efforts to bring together experts and practitioners from around the
country and to coordinate efforts on water resource adaptation among various EPA programs
including those supporting the research described herein. Additionally, the Office of Air and
Radiation's Climate Change Division has been interested in this R&D and the ACE climate
program as a whole.
The project and writing team would like to acknowledge the participation in this research
by numerous technical staff and participants from EPA staff and individuals to contracting
research organizations. This investigation of both a wide breadth and a substantial depth was
made possible only with their participation and contribution. Administrative and contract
supports are acknowledged of Dr. Michael Moeykens, Michelle Latham, Steve Herman, and
Stephen Wright. Finally, technical data and collaboration efforts by the U.S. Department of
Energy National Climatic Historical Network, the Manatee County Water Department, the Great
Cincinnati Water Works, and the Las Vegas Valley Water District are also acknowledged.
The national adaptation assessment report was originally prepared in 2010 and reviewed
by individuals inside and outside of the U.S. EPA. Based on review comments, additional
technical contents were added with newly developed adaptation tools and methods. This
development led to rewriting and reorganization of the entire report. In the process, three rounds
of internal and external peer reviews were conducted. After two rounds of peer-review, all three
documents of the national water infrastructure adaptation report have been subjected to
administrative review and have been approved for publication. The contributing teams to this
volume include:
Principal Investigator and Lead Author
Dr. Y. Jeffrey Yang, P.E., D.WRE, ORD/NRMRL
EPA project and writing team
Dr. James Goodrich, ORD/NHSRC
Joseph McDonald, ORD/NRMRL
Jill Neal, ORD/NRMRL
Dr. Michelle Simon, P.E., ORD/NRMRL
-------
Principal Authors and Contributors:
Dr. Steven Buchberger, P.E., University of Cincinnati
Dr. Zhiwei Li, Carbon Capture Scientific, LLC.
Dr. Robert C. Clark, P.E., Environmental Consultant
Dr. Walter Grayman, P.E., W.M. Grayman Consulting Engineer
Dr. Ni-Bin Chang, P.E., D.WRE, University of Central Florida
Dr. Susanna long, University of Cincinnati
Dr. Xinhao Wang, University of Cincinnati
Dr. Heng Wei, University of Cincinnati
Dr. Timothy C. Keener, P.E., University of Cincinnati
Dr. Marissa S. Liang, University of Cincinnati
Dr. Jamie Rooke, Cadmus Inc.
Dr. Chi Ho Sham, Cadmus, Inc.
Contract Research Organizations and Individuals:
Pegasus Technical Services
Dr. Karen Kran,
University of Cincinnati
Hao Liu, Zhuo Yao, Ting Zuo, Dr. Yu Sun, Xin Fu, Amy Burguess, Heng Yang,
lie He, Patcha Huntra, Dr. Pamela Heckle, P.E., Dr. Thushara Ranatunga,
Katherine Carlton-Perkins
University of Central Florida
Dr. Ammarin Makkeasorn, Sanez Imen, Lee Mullon,
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Dr. Chi Ho Sham, Jaime Rooke, Brent Ranalli, Laurie Potter, Laura Blake, Dr.
Julie Blue, Donna Jensen, Patricia Hertzler, Grey Benjamin, Carolyn Gillette,
Adam Banasiak, Dr. Richard Krop, Erin Mateo, Andy Somor
This report has been peer-reviewed in two rounds, for which the following reviewers are
acknowledged:
(First Round)
Dr. Vahid Alavian, World Bank
Mr. Jeff Adams, U.S. EPA, ORD
Dr. Nancy Beller-Simms, NOAA
Dr. E.P.H. Best, U.S. EPA, ORD
Dr. Pratim Biswas, P.E, Washington University
Dr. Levi Brekke, Bureau of Reclamation
Mr. Mao Fang, P.E., Las Vegas Valley Water District
Mr. Gary Hudiburgh, Office of Water, AIEO
Dr. Timothy C. Keener, P.E., University of Cincinnati
Dr. Paul Kirshen, University of New Hampshire
Dr. Julie Kiang, U.S. Geological Survey
Dr. Thomas Johnson, U.S. EPA, ORD
-------
Mr. Craig Patterson, P.E., U.S. EPA, ORD
Dr. Joo-Youp Lee, University of Cincinnati
Dr. Steven McCutcheon, P.E., D.WRE., U.S. EPA, ORD
Mr. Ken Moraff, U.S. EPA, Region 1
Ms. Angela Restivo, U.S. EPA, Region 6
Dr. Neil Stiber, EPA, OSA
Mr. Michael J. Wallis, East Bay Municipal Utility District, CA
Dr. Xinhao Wang, University of Cincinnati
Dr. Glen Boyd, Laura Dufresne, Charles A. Hernick, Dr. Ken Klewicki, Dr. Jonathan
Koplos, Dr. Ralph Jones, Frank Letkiewicz, Dr. Richard Krop, Dr. Karen
Sklenar, Dr. Mary Ellen Tuccillo, Vanessa M. Leiby, Jeff Maxted, G. Tracy
Mehan III, Tom Mulcahy, Rudd Coffey. All with The Cadmus Group, Inc.
(Second round)
Mr. Phil Zahreddine, EPA, OWM
Ms. Karen L. Metchis, EPA, OWM
Dr. Audrey Levine, National Science Foundation
Dr. Fred Bloetscher, Florida Atlantic University
Ms. Michelle Young, The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Dr. Chi Ho Sham, The Cadmus Group, Inc.
(Third round)
Dr. Kenneth Kunkel, NOAA, National Climate Data Center
-------
ABSTRACT
The report "National Water Infrastructure Adaptation Assessment" is comprised of four
parts (Part I to IV), each in an independent volume. The Part I report presented herein describes
a preliminary regulatory and technical analysis of water infrastructure and regulations in the
United States (U.S.) under the climate and socioeconomic changes. Specifically, a nation-wide
assessment was conducted to analyze priority issues facing water and wastewater utilities.
Utilities' responses are found to be consistent with those of five similar national assessments
conducted by non-EPA organizations. To water utilities and local governments, climate change
is not rated as the highest priority, but as an important concern. A lack of actionable science
often impedes immediate planning and engineering actions. This Part-I report also describes a
regulatory analysis in which the potential impacts of climate change on a set of water and air
regulatory programs are evaluated. It is further found that the vulnerability to climate change is
compounded by the deterioration of aging water infrastructure that lags behind socioeconomic
changes. In summary, the confluence of these factors - climate change, aging water
infrastructure, regulatory programs and utility priority setting in water utilities forms a "perfect
storm" with implications for desired service functions and long-term sustainability of Nation's
water infrastructure.
The other three volumes cover the subjects of climate change impact characterization in
different spatiotemporal scales, for which a range of water infrastructure adaptation techniques
and methods are presented. Part II of the adaptation report describes the hydroclimatic changes
in contiguous U.S. in the next 30-50 years, the time frame common for water infrastructure
master planning. The analysis was based on a detailed analysis of long-term (-98 years)
precipitation records, hydroclimatic provinces and major climate factors. These datasets, along
with climate teleconnection study results, are available to assist climate model projections. Part
III of the adaptation report provides datasets, tools and methods aimed to develop actionable
science for adaptation. Part IV of the report covers infrastructure adaptation techniques and
methods that range from urban-scale adaptive planning to infrastructure engineering for
adaptation. Tools and methods are described along with case studies.
These technical reports discuss the challenges facing the Nation's water infrastructure
and the ways to improve its sustainability. Major findings are: 1) climate impacts on hydrology
and surface water quality are significant demanding for proper adaptation actions in water
resource and water infrastructure programs; 2) the nation's water and wastewater utilities are not
well-prepared to act on climate change adaptation, partially because of the lack of actionable
climate data and adaptation methods, amendable to well-accepted water engineering practice; 3)
climate change adaptation requires usable projections of the impacts for which integrated model-
monitoring techniques are outlined for use at watershed scales; and 4) the adaptation methods
and tools in urban-scale planning and in system-scale engineering can make the effective
adaptation possible even under the uncertainties in future climate and precipitation projections.
For managers, policy-makers, and a broader audience, these technical findings and essential
information are summarized in a companion synopsis report.
-------
Table of Contents
Disclaimer ii
Forward iii
Preface iv
Acknowledgement v
Abstract viii
Abbreviations and Notations xiv
Part One: Climate Change Adaptation Readiness Assessment 1
1. Overview 1
2. Drinking Water and Wastewater System Infrastructure Condition and Stressors 4
2.1. Climate Change as an Important Driver 4
2.1.1. Changes in Temperature and Precipitation 5
2.1.2. Sea Level Rise and Storm Surge 8
2.2. U.S. Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure 9
2.2.1. Drinking Water Infrastructure National Needs 11
2.2.2. Wastewater Infrastructure National Needs 16
2.3. Other Factors Affecting Infrastructure Sustainability 19
2.3.1. Population Growth and Demographic Shifts 19
2.3.2. Public Health and Social Development 21
2.3.3. Economic Development 22
2.3.4. Emerging Drivers in Energy-Water Nexus 24
2.4. Summary of Regulations and Regulatory Programs 25
2.4.1. Safe Drinking Water Act 26
2.4.1.1. Climate Change Impacts and Relevance 26
2.4.1.2. Additional measures to protect public health 30
2.4.2. Clean Water Act 31
2.4.3. Clean Air Act 32
2.4.4. EPA Climate Change Programs and Sustainability Initiatives 33
3. Utility Assessment of Future Trends and Needs 36
3.1. U.S. Conference of Mayors National City Water Surveys 38
3.2. AWWARF Assessment of Trends and their Implications for Water Utilities 40
3.3. University of Cincinnati Regional Poll of Five Cities Plus Conference Participants 41
3.3.1. Assessment Methods 41
-------
3.3.2. Findings 44
3.4. University of Cincinnati National On-line Questionnaire 45
3.4.1. Methods 45
3.4.2. Findings 46
3.4.2.1. Utility profiles 47
3.4.2.2. Infrastructure and operation 53
3.4.2.3. Agents of change 64
3.4.2.4. Master plan and next steps 66
3.5. AWW A State of the Water Industry 68
3.5.1. Methods 68
3.5.2. Findings 69
3.6. Water Research Foundation Forecasting the Future 73
3.6.1. Methods 73
3.6.2. Findings 74
3.7. Water Research Foundation Effective Climate Change Communication 76
4. Assessment Summary on Adaptation Readiness 76
5. References 79
Appendix 1-A 90
1. Safe Drinking Water Act and Regulations 90
1.1. Total coliform rule and the revised total coliform rule 90
1.2. Disinfectant / disinfection by-products rules 90
1.3. Surface water treatment rules 91
1.4. Lead and Copper rules 92
1.5. Ground water rule 93
1.6. Chemical phase rules 93
1.7. Contaminant candidate list and regulatory determinations 94
1.8. Underground injection control 94
2. Clean Water Act and Regulations 95
2.1. Water quality standards 96
2.2. NPDES permitting 96
2.3. TMDL development 97
2.4. CWSRF and NFS program funding 98
3. Clean Air Act 98
3.1. Greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act 98
-------
3.2. Transportation and mobile source greenhouse gas regulations 99
3.3. Stationary source greenhouse gas regulations 99
3.4. Water resources impacts from energy and air-related programs 100
4. References 101
Appendix I-B 104
Appendix I-C 106
Appendix I-D 115
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Size Category, Type, and Number of Public Water Systems in the U.S. in 2011 10
Table 1-2. Number of Public Water Systems and Population Served by Source of Water 11
Table 1-3. 2011 DWINSA Findings by Public Water System Size 12
Table 1-4. DWINSA Comparison of 20-Year National Need 12
Table 1-5. Aggregate Needs for Investment in Water Mains through 2035 and 2050 by Region
14
Table 1-6. Comparison of total needs for water quality projects 2000-2008 in billions of dollars
18
Table 1-7. Water Consumption Normalized by Net Electric Generation for Thermoelectric
Power Plants 33
Table 1-8. Ranked Order of 24 Water Resources Issues 39
Table 1-9. Percentage of 414 Cities Planning Infrastructure Investments in 2005-2009 40
Table 1-10. Utility Trends Identified in Expert Interviews 41
Table 1-11. Ranked Order of 20 Issues Facing Midwest Wastewater Utilities (N=6) 44
Table 1-12. Main Sections of the On-line Water Utility Questionnaire 45
Table 1-13. Participant Profile of Water Utilities Completing On-line Questionnaire 46
Table 1-14. Statistics for Service Connections and Population Served at 55 Water Utilities .... 48
Table 1-15. Relationship between Connections, Flows, and Population, Y = aXb 49
Table 1-16. Estimated Flows by Water Utility Respondents 51
Table 1-17. Drinking Water Treatment Plant Processes (N = 25 responses) 53
Table 1-18. Wastewater Treatment Plant Processes (N = 23 responses) 54
Table 1-19. Treatment Plant Capacity of 51 Water Utilities 55
Table 1-20. Number and Size of Facilities in Drinking Water Supply Systems 58
Table 1-21. Issues Ranked by all 2014 SOTWI Respondents 70
Table 1-22. Top 15 Issues from the 2014 and 2013 SOTWI Surveys 71
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Climate change - an integrating framework (based on Houghton, 2004; IPCC,
2001) 5
Figure 1-2. Examples of coastal innudation due to sea level rise and disruptive storm surge
impacts 9
Figure 1-3. Regions used in the AWWA "Buried no Longer" report (AWWA, 2012) 13
Figure 1-4. Total 20-year need by project type (in billions of January 2011 Dollars) (U.S.
EPA, 2013a) 15
Figure 1-5. Total documented needs in the clean water needs survey (January 2004 dollars)
(U.S. EPA, 2008a) 17
Figure 1-6. Population change rate projections for 2012-2017 in the contiguous U.S, showing
spatial diaparities across the continent 20
Figure 1-7. Decrease of monthly average water consumption per capita in Las Vegas
metropolitan area, Nevada, showing steady decline since 1990 21
Figure 1-8. United States real GDP, 1980-2013. Data from U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis 23
Figure 1-9. Annual percent change in real GDP by region, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Data
from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 23
Figure 1-10. Annual worldwide energy usage in terawatt-hours, 1965-2008 (BP, 2014) 24
Figure 1-11. Evolution of federal drinking water regulations (updated from Panguluri et al.,
2006) 27
Figure 1-12. Ranking matrix distributed to wastewater utility directors attending the Five Cities
Plus Conference held in Columbus Ohio, June 2008 43
Figure 1-13. Participants in the Five Cities Plus Conference Survey and the National Water
Infrastructure Questionnaire 43
Figure 1-14. Size of service area for 54 drinking water and wastewater utilities 47
Figure 1-15. Number of employees at 55 drinking water and wastewater utilities 48
Figure 1-16. Service connections versus population at 55 water utilities (DW=blue; WW=red)
49
Figure 1-17. Flows versus population at 55 water utilities (DW=blue; WW=red) 49
Figure 1-18. Comparison of surface water and groundwater sources at drinking water utilities
50
Figure 1-19. Distribution of projected growth in utility customer base over next 20 years .... 51
Figure 1 -20. Distribution of annual average temperature at 49 water utilities 52
Figure 1-21. Distribution of annual average precipitation at 54 water utilities 52
-------
Figure 1-22. Distribution of treatment plant capacity expressed as GPCD 55
Figure 1-23. Factor of safety for drinking water and wastewater operations based on summer
2008 peak flows 56
Figure 1-24. Factor of safety for drinking water and wastewater operations based on summer
2028 peak flows 57
Figure 1-25. Pipe material used in drinking water distribution networks and wastewater
collection systems 58
Figure 1-26. Percentage of pipes older than 50 years 59
Figure 1-27. Annual breakage rates per mile of pipe 59
Figure 1-28. Percentage of pipes replaced annually 60
Figure 1 -29. Self-assessment of infrastructure performance and condition by 50 utilities 60
Figure 1-30. Annual inspection rates for wastewater infrastructure 61
Figure 1-31. Most recent major upgrade to water system facilities 62
Figure 1-32. Occurrence of CSOs and SSOs at wastewater utilities 62
Figure 1-33. Occurrence of unaccounted for water at drinking water utilities 63
Figure 1-34. Incidence of water conservation measures at drinking water utilities 63
Figure 1-35. Incidence of infiltration and inflow at wastewater utilities 64
Figure 1-36. Major issues affecting water utility operation 65
Figure 1-37. Major issues affecting sustainability of water utility operation 65
Figure 1-38. Projected utility growth over 20 years 66
Figure 1-39. Water utilities with amasterplan 67
Figure 1-40. Time horizon for utility master plan (median is roughly 20 years) 67
Figure 1-41. Water utilities with asset management program 68
Figure 1-42. Number of respondents for the 2014 SOTWI survey by career category 69
Figure 1-43. Responses from all SOWTI survey participants on readiness for potential climate
change impacts (n=l,459) (AWWA, 2014) 72
Figure 1-44. Responses from utility employees on their utility's action to include climate
variability in its management or planning processes (n=791) (AWWA, 2014) ... 73
Figure 1-45. Top rated trends common to both the water sector and individual utility (Brueck
etal., 2012) 74
Figure 1-46. Additional highly rated trends for the water sector (Brueck et al., 2012) 75
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS
Definitions and Abbreviations
AMWA Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
AWWA American Water Works Association
AWWARF AWWA Research Foundation
BMP better management practices
CA cellular automata
CBO Congressional Budget Office
CDF cumulative density function
CSO combined sewer overflow
CSS combined sewer system
CWA Clean Water Act
CWNS clean watershed needs survey
CWS community water systems
CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund
DBF disinfection by-products
DW drinking water
ET evapotranspiration
GAC granular activated carbon
GDP gross domestic product
GHG greenhouse gas
GPCD gallons per capita per day
HSPF hydrologic simulation program - Fortran
IDF precipitation intensity - duration - frequency
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
MCL maximum contaminant level
MCLG maximum contaminant level goal
MGD million gallons per day
MRDL maximum residual disinfectant level
NACWA National Association of Clean Water Agencies
NAWC National Association of Water Companies
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOM natural organic matter
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems
NFS nonpoint source
NRC National Research Council
NRCS National Resources Conservation Service
NRMRL USEPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NTNCWS non-transient non-community water system
NWS National Weather Service
ORD USEPA Office of Research and Development
-------
OW USEP A Office of Water
POTW publicly owned treatment works
R&D research and development
RBC rotating biological contactors
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SRF State Revolving Fund
SSO sanitary sewer overflows
THM trihalomethane
TMDL total maximum daily load
TNCWS transient non-community water system
TOC total organic carbons
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USGS U.S. Geological Service
UWC United States Conference of Mayors Urban Water Council
WTP water treatment plant
WW wastewater
-------
Part One: Climate Change Adaptation Readiness Assessment
Steven Buchberger1, Y. Jeffrey Yang2, Laurie Potter3, Laura Blake3, Julie Blue3, Donna Jensen3,
Patricia Hertzler3, Robert Clark4, Joseph McDonald2, James Goodrich2, Walter Grayman5
1. Overview
The combination of aging water infrastructure and ongoing climate change demand a
systems approach to managing the Nation's water assets and improving infrastructure
sustainability. The looming need for capital improvement in the water sector poses a challenge,
but it also provides a rare opportunity to deliberately incorporate principles of sustainability and
climate change adaptation into the planning, design, and operation of the next generation of
water infrastructure (Yang, 2010). In this context, sustainability refers to the ability or pre-
planned capacity reserve of water infrastructure to effectively respond to stresses, including both
the impacts associated with traditional demographic and socioeconomic drivers, and also those
that are associated with global climate change. In order to incorporate principles of sustainability
and climate change adaptation effectively, it will be necessary to develop actionable data at the
local scale on climatic trends as well as demographic and socioeconomic trends.
Climate Change as Pressing Driver
Climate change is an important factor that further complicates the way in which the
nation's water infrastructure must be upgraded, managed and operated. Recent reports from
International Energy Agency (IEA) and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
have shown that global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been growing rapidly (IPCC,
2013). In May 2013, global carbon dioxide (CCh) atmospheric concentrations exceeded 400 parts
per million by volume (ppmv) for the first time in several hundreds of thousands of years.
Expressed as CO2 equivalent (CCh-eq), GHG emissions increased from 27.9 to 50.1 gigatons per
year (Gt/yr) between 1970 and 2010, and the GHG emission trend is very likely to increase
global temperatures by 3.6-5.3 °C within this century (IPCC, 2013; 2014; IEA, 2013a).
Because of the close connection and feedbacks in water-energy-climate nexus, the
challenge in climate change mitigation and adaptation is complex yet prominent. The changing
climate can potentially change water availability and urban energy consumption, including water
production and management. Societal response through mitigation and adaptation can also
change future GHG emission, resulting in a climate response and creating a new set of
environmental conditions (Princiotta, 2009; PNNL, 2012). For instance, a future energy portfolio
responding to the need for climate mitigation would likely move toward low-carbon but more
water-intensive forms of energy production. Specifically, biomass-based energy is expected to
increase by 215 percent over 25 years to 4.1 million barrel oil equivalent per day by 2035 (LEA,
2013b). In the U.S., where ambitious corn ethanol production goals have been established in
1 University of Cincinnati, Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, Cincinnati, Ohio
2 US EPA, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio
3 The Cadmus Group Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts
4 Environmental Engineering and Public Health Consultant, 9627 Lansford Drive, Cincinnati, OH
5 Grayman Consulting Engineers, Cincinnati, Ohio
-------
order to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, increased evapotranspiration may increase corn irrigation
rates by 9 percent over the course of 40 years under projected climate change scenarios, even as
yields decline by 7 percent (Dominguez-Faus et al., 2013). The impact of mitigation and
adaptation measures on water resources (and hence water infrastructure) is expected to be
particularly significant in water-stressed regions (IPCC, 2014; Friedrich et al., 2009; Cooley et
al., 2011).
Even in the most optimistic case, if atmospheric CO2 levels are reduced and radiative
forcing is reversed, hydrosphere system inertia is likely to continue to drive hydroclimatic
changes (IPCC, 2013). Continental precipitation, for example, will be altered. Changes in
continental precipitation could adversely impact water supply, wastewater and storm water
management programs, and civil works. This is because precipitation and its spatial distribution
dictate water availability, surface water hydrology, water quality, stream flow, and groundwater
recharge. In sum, water sector adaptation to climate change is a necessity. This has been
recognized in Europe, in Australia, and increasingly in the U.S. as well (e.g., Ashley et al., 2007;
Wilby, 2007; Hamin and Gurran, 2008; Pielke Jr., 2007; Barsugli et al., 2009; Yang and
Goodrich, 2014).
Climate change affects all aspects of design, operation, and management of water
infrastructure. In most cases, water infrastructure in the U.S. was designed and built in
anticipation of population, demographic, and economic changes over a 30-50 year horizon. This
forward-planning and engineering is commonly captured in development of master plans or in
infrastructure master planning and capital improvement programs. Climate stationarity is
commonly assumed in all practices. The statistics of historical climate observations such as
precipitation are taken to represent the future condition under which the water infrastructures
will provide services. As the climate changes, facilities built upon the assumptions of climate
stationarity could experience failure and potentially lead to interrupted services and expensive
rehabilitation or replacement in a short time period.
Infrastructure Improvement as Opportunity
In the interest of a safe drinking water supply and sustainable storm water and wastewater
management, local governments, counties, regional authorities, states, and the federal
government in the U.S. have made substantial investments in the construction, maintenance, and
operation of water resource infrastructure assets (Mays, 2002; U.S. EPA, 2002a). Between 1956
and 2008, local governments alone spent an estimated combined total of $1.61 trillion nominal
dollars on drinking water and wastewater construction, maintenance, and operation (Anderson,
2010). State and local government spending on wastewater and drinking water in 2008 was an
estimated $93 billion (ASCE, 2013). Yet investments have not kept pace with needs to renovate
and replace an aging and deteriorating water infrastructure; this deterioration poses an
increasingly serious challenge to the provision of uninterrupted water supply and storm water
and wastewater management services (ASCE, 2013; U.S.GAO, 2006; AWWA, 2012). Over the
past decade, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has consistently given the
condition of the U.S.' water resource systems (including drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure, dams, and navigable waterways) a grade of D or D- (ASCE, 2005; 2009; 2013).
The most recent comprehensive estimates of capital investment needs in the U.S. wastewater and
-2-
-------
drinking water sectors for a 20-year timeframe stand at $298.1 billion and $384.2 billion,
respectively (U.S. EPA, 2008a; 2013a).
In addition to existing infrastructure footprint, climate change adaptation takes place also
in the context of existing laws and regulations. A broad review of the existing water and air laws
as well as new GHG rules, indicates that climate change can affect various parts of the regulatory
program from NPDES permitting, TMDL allocations, to drinking water D/DBP rules, and to
water resource impacts from sustainable energy productions. See Appendix I-A and other parts
of the national adaptation report.
Infrastructure Adaptation Approach and Methods
The ways to recognize and adapt to climate change were investigated through multi-scale
infrastructure adaptation studies. The results are presented in four parts in four volumes. The
report Part I contains an overview of anticipated climatic changes at the national scale, the
condition of U.S. water infrastructure, other (non-climatic) factors affecting water infrastructure
sustainability, the regulatory regimes affecting water infrastructure adaptation, and the results of
surveys that shed light on water industry priorities and trends and the place of climate change
among other perceived challenges. The report Part II describes in detail the principal climate
change factors, most notably those related to precipitation, that affect water infrastructure
planning and operations. It provides datasets for "top-down" quantitative assessments of climate
change impacts in the form of precipitation. Additionally, hydroclimatic variability is analyzed
for the contiguous U.S. over long-range historical precipitation records. The results provide a
basis for climate model downscaling simulations and evaluating the validity of climate
projections in local water resource planning and engineering.
The reports Part III and Part IV in the last two volumes discuss the methods and tools,
respectively, for determining climate change impact characteristics and for planning and
designing climate change adaptation. The Part III report describes a modeling-monitoring
platform in climate change impact assessment. It consists of satellite-based water quality and
water availability monitoring, and an integrated model simulation for land use and hydrological
changes in a watershed. The hydrologic simulation leverages on Hydrological Simulation
Program FORTRAN (HSPF) and cellula-automada Marchov (CA-MC) models. The
hydrological responses from climate and land use changes are simultaneously considered.
Lastly, the Part IV report describes planning and engineering techniques for water infrastructure
adaptation. Illustrative case studies are provided.
The multi-disciplinary research and technical investigations were initiated by the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Water Resources Adaptation Program (WRAP) team
of scientists and engineers in October 2007. In this research, principal factors affecting the U.S.
wastewater, stormwater, and drinking water infrastructures were systematically evaluated with a
focus on future climate and socioeconomic conditions for the next 30-50 years (approximately
2007-2050). This approach aims to link climate change and adaptation research to tools and
actions at local levels. In 2010, as a result of a reorganization of the ORD research portfolio,
WRAP research activities were incorporated into projects under the new Air, Climate and
Energy (ACE) and Safe and Sustainable Water Resources (SSWR) programs. This adaptation
assessment report is tailored to meet specific ACE program needs. Specifically, this national
-3-
-------
climate change adaptation assessment report attempts to address the following research
questions:
• What is the current state of the Nation's water infrastructure in relation to the Clean
Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act programs? Are current infrastructure
conditions sustainable, and what stressors restrict water infrastructures from providing
intended services and achieving long-term management goals?
• Is climate change a major stressor, in addition to land use and socioeconomic factors that
must be considered in the design, operation, and management of water infrastructures?
• What are the major concerns of U.S. drinking water and wastewater managers and to
what extent do these concerns include climate change adaptation? Are they ready to take
on these challenges for improved infrastructure sustainability?
• How do hydroclimatic changes and their impacts vary among different regions of the
U.S.? How can water infrastructure vulnerability be evaluated? How can water utilities be
assisted with adaptation solutions at local scales?
• Can climate change and its projection uncertainties be effectively managed in the design,
engineering, and operation of water infrastructures? How can climate change be
considered simultaneously with the other more traditional variables in infrastructure
planning?
2. Drinking Water and Wastewater System Infrastructure Condition and
Stressors
2.1. Climate Change as an Important Driver
Climate change is a global phenomenon that affects both human and natural systems.
Houghton (2004) demonstrates the interaction of climate change with adaptation and mitigation
activities in an integrated framework, as depicted graphically in Figure 1-1 (Figure originally
appeared in IPCC, 2001).
Starting with the box in the lower right hand corner (and moving clockwise), socio-
economic activities result in increased emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. Greenhouse
gases, such as CO2, methane (CH/t), and nitrous oxide (N2O), absorb heat radiating from the
earth and trap it, thus raising global temperature. Aerosols have complex interactions with the
climate that include both increases and decreases in temperatures, effects on cloud formation,
and increased melting of polar and glacial ice. Increased global mean temperature results in an
increased capacity to retain water vapor in the atmosphere. Stratospheric water vapor may
contribute to climate feedback; research in this area is ongoing (IPCC, 2013). Nevertheless, it is
clear that climate change affects the spatial distribution and quantity of precipitation, temperature
distribution, extreme events, and sea level. These climate changes affect human and natural
ecosystems (including water use and wastewater generation), altering resource availability and
affecting human activities and health. Various adaptation and mitigation activities can further
exacerbate or reduce climate change or its impacts.
-4-
-------
Impacts on human
& natural systems
Food & water resources
Ecosystem & biodiversity
Human settlements
Human health
Climate Change
Temperature rise
Sea level rise
Precipitation change
Droughts & floods
Socio-economic
development paths
Economic growth
Technology
Population
Governance
Emissions &
Concentrations
Greenhouse gases
Aerosols
Figure 1-1. Climate change - an integrating framework (based on Houghton,
2004; IPCC, 2001).
The U.S.
generally has adequate
water resources. Yet the
challenge to provide
uninterrupted water
supply and to manage
wastewater and
storm water is increasing
in the time of continuing
climate and land use
changes. Reports by The
National Academies
(2009) and the U.S.
Global Change Research
Program (2014) describe
the roles of climate
change and human
activities that are
pertinent to the
sustainability of water infrastructures. IPCC (2013) is an authoritative general review of the state
of scientific knowledge about climate change. Other notable summary reports include those to
Congress by the Congressional Budget Office (e.g., CBO, 2002). These recent research reports
strongly suggest that the effects of climate change on water infrastructure and water resources
programs are apparent in multiple ways. For example, changes in hydrologic cycles due to
climate change can affect both water quantity and water quality, thus potentially affecting water
infrastructure engineering and management (Milly et al., 2008; Brown, 2010; IPCC, 2013). The
change in environmental conditions also affects the integrity of water infrastructure assets.
Corrosion of buried pipes in the increasingly moist soil, and physical damage to water facilities
during extreme meteorological events such as hurricanes, are common examples. Furthermore,
there is interdependency among climate change, land use change, demographic and population
shifts, and socioeconomic activities (Ewing et al., 2007; USGCRP, 2014). The interdependency
among these principal variables complicates the planning and design of water infrastructure
adaptations.
The general climate change impacts in these categories have been widely reported in
literature and technical reports (e.g., IPCC, 2013; USGCRP, 2014; The National Academies,
2009; and references therein). Yet reports on how these types of climate changes affect water
infrastructure at local levels are scarce. In this multi-scale adaptation assessment, attention is
focused on the changes in continental precipitation and their impacts on local water resources
and water infrastructure. Other forms of climate change impacts such as sea level rise, disruptive
meteorological storms, and groundwater recharge are not considered within this report.
2.1.1. Changes in Temperature and Precipitation
Changes in precipitation (e.g., intensity, frequency, duration, and spatial distribution) due
to global climate change can directly affect the water quality of streams, lakes, and rivers
-------
(McKenney et al., 2006; Coulibaly, 2006; IPCC, 2013). A more detailed analysis and case
studies are provided in the Part III report. The changes in water quality directly affect the
performance of water infrastructure and the management of water-related regulatory programs.
For example, increases in high-intensity precipitation can result in runoff events with more
intensive first flush impacts and higher peak flows. Likely consequences of this change include
increased levels of pesticides and pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and protozoa in lakes, rivers, and
streams and problematic levels of turbidity in the source water of drinking water supplies (e.g.,
Charron et al., 2004; Whitehead et al., 2006; Macdonald et al., 2005; van Verseveld et al., 2008).
Although some areas may experience increases in runoff, other areas may experience droughts
and consequently, water quality changes from elevated levels of potentially toxic cyanobacteria
and high concentrations of organic matter, macronutrients, etc. Global climate change may also
include increases in ambient temperature and changes in precipitation seasonality, surface water,
and groundwater hydrology. In general, increased precipitation is expected in the northern U.S.
while decreased precipitation is predicted for the southern U.S. and for the southwest in
particular (USGCRP, 2014).
Those areas that experience decreased precipitation and increased temperatures will
likely experience reduced stream flows and a worsening water availability problem. For streams
receiving wastewater effluent, reduced flows are typically associated with lower levels of
dissolved oxygen, diminished assimilative capacity, increased pollutant concentrations, and a
deteriorating stream ecologic habitat. Another climate change impact, known with higher
certainty, is the melting of mountain ice storage and ice caps at Earth's poles (IPCC, 2013;
USGCRP, 2014). The early melt of mountain glaciers in the northwestern U.S. and in the
Colorado River Upper Basins has resulted in changes in stream hydrology and water quality,
such as changes in the timing of Spring peak river flows, stream ecologic changes such as
changes in Pacific Salmon migration patterns, and changes in water supply in general for the
region (Barnett et al., 2005; Stewart et al., 2004; Hamlet and Lettenmaier, 1999; Mote et al.,
2003; Battin et al., 2007).
It is worth to note, however, that changes in continental precipitation are difficult to
project quantitatively. For simplicity, precipitation patterns have long been assumed by the water
resource and infrastructure engineering professionals to be static in the long run. In other words,
future precipitation at a given location is projected by assuming precipitation variability in the
future will resemble precipitation variability in the past. Such an analysis is commonly based on
Bayesian statistics of historical precipitation records, typically of a few decades. Observed
variations in the past are assumed to represent the future for which an infrastructure is designed,
constructed and managed (see details in Section 5.1-5.2 of Part III report). From this viewpoint,
the existing practice has accounted for climate variability but neglects the effects of climate
change. In particular, the following water resource parameters are likely to be affected if
significant climate change occurs during the service life of a piece of water infrastructure:
Precipitation intensity-duration-frequency: Rainfall intensity-duration-frequency (DDF) is a key
climate-related hydrological parameter permeating almost all aspects of hydrological
engineering, such as in storm runoff, water reservoir, groundwater infiltration, flood control, etc.
Commonly used DDF curves from NOAA (e.g., NWS Atlas-14) take a given length of observed
precipitation records in Bayesian statistics to predict precipitation intensity for a given storm
(e.g., 24-hours). No attempt is made to discern trends over the course of the observation period,
-------
and IDF statistics are normally applied as if they were equally descriptive of the future as they
are of the past. Precipitation intensity is important to water infrastructure because, for example,
in urban areas it affects the frequency of combined sewer overflows and can therefore affect the
risk of bacterial contamination of drinking water sources.
Precipitation areal distribution: Areal coverage of precipitation events changes with season,
hydroclimatic region, and the region's topography. This variable is not among the most
frequently discussed in climate science and in hydrological studies. However, it can play a
significant role in watershed modeling and water resources management, and can affect urban
hydrology and performance of stormwater and wastewater infrastructures.
Form of precipitation: Precipitation can take the form of rainfall or snow. The hydrological
effects of rainfall and a snow event with the same water content differ in several ways, including
the duration and timing of water release to the watershed, and consequently also on peak runoff
amounts, soil moisture, and watershed hydrology. This difference is stark for snow packs in high
altitudes, such as the Rocky Mountains and the U.S. northwest.
Air and water temperature: For the temperate contiguous U.S., water temperature varies
seasonally and will change in response to changes in ambient air temperature. Climate models
(IPCC, 2013 Chapter 11) project for the near-term an increase of global mean surface air
temperature of 0.3 to 0.7 degrees Celsius (°C) for the period 2016-2035, relative to the reference
period 1986-2005. Over most parts of the United States, air temperatures are projected to rise by
2 to 4°F (1.1 °C- 2.2 °C) over the next few decades. Under various emissions scenarios, by 2100
temperature increases are projected to be between 3 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), equivalent
tol.7 °C- 2.8 °C) higher on the low end (assuming substantial reductions in emissions) and 5 to
10°F (2.8 °C- 5.6 °C) on the high end (assuming continued increases in emissions) (USGCRP,
2014).
Effects of temperature increases on surface water bodies have been reported in the
literature (Kaushal et al., 2010; Mantua et al., 2010; Walther, 2010; Whitehead et al., 2009;
Woodward et al., 2010). Kaushal et al. (2010) reported rates of temperature increase in the range
of 0.009-0.077 °C per year (/yr) for 20 major rivers and streams in the contiguous U.S. These
changes in temperature can lead to changes in water quality that consequently affect drinking
water production (Delpla et al., 2009). In addition, the increases in sediment, nitrogen, and other
contaminants can be expected in rivers and lakes as the result of increasing air and water
temperatures, increased frequency of intense rainfall events, and more intense droughts
(USGCRP, 2014).
Indirect hydrological changes: There are several other hydrological changes that, if induced by
climate change, could materially affect water infrastructure, its service functionality, and
environmental compliance. The indirect impacts of climate change originate from interactions of
climate change (temperature, precipitation, heat waves, droughts, hurricanes, etc.) and the
environment. For example, higher ambient temperature and extended duration can affect
vegetation cover, increase direct runoff and evapotranspiration (ET). The indirect effect can be
decreased soil moisture and water replenishment to groundwater, potentially affecting stream
base flow. Satellite data indicate that soil moisture has decreased in parts of North America over
the past couple of decades and increased in others; observed decreases in evapotranspiration
(ET) have tended to occur in water-rich areas (USGCRP, 2014). Limited climate modeling
-7-
-------
studies available in the literature indicate likely future changes in soil moisture. In urban areas,
the storm water runoff from an increased precipitation intensity in the future climate is
compounded by an increased impervious surface as urbanization continues. Sometimes the
relationship is implicit, such that it can be identified only by detailed investigations to be the
result of climate change. Yet these implicit indirect hydrological changes can influence or affect
infrastructure planning, design, and management.
Warmer temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns can contribute to the risk of
other types of extreme events, such as wildfires. Depending on the proximity of the raw water
source and water treatment plant to the fire, deforestation and the resulting hillslope runoff from
erosion can dramatically increase reservoir sedimentation, clog the water delivery system, and
create long-term treatment problems for water treatment plants. Research sponsored in part by
EPA indicates that higher turbidity, nitrate, dissolved organic carbon, ash deposition, and
changes in aromaticity of soil organic matter may affect water quality and treatment
requirements (Sham et al., 2013). Watershed recovery takes between 4 to 8 years and the raw
water sources may be affected for 4 to 5 years after a fire (Clark, 2010). Components of the
utility's infrastructure itself may also be vulnerable to damage from wildfires.
The indirect hydrological changes in water quality are often substantial and show in
multiple dimensions. For example, the occurrence of cyanob acted al blooms (i.e., microcystin,
etc.) increases in frequency, magnitude and location over surface water bodies (Paerl and Paul,
2012; Chang et al., 2014). With higher water temperatures and altered micronutrient ratios,
climate change can foster aquatic environments favoring outsized cyanobacteria growth. Other
water quality parameters that can be affected include total organic carbon (TOC), natural organic
matter (NOM), turbidity, and micronutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus). In the Part III
report, climate-change-related alterations in water quality in simulations for two watersheds are
described.
2.1.2. Sea Level Rise and Storm Surge
Sea level rise and changes in frequency and magnitude of extreme events such as storm
surge and hurricanes can also affect water infrastructure. Observed sea level rise is attributed to
the melting of polar ice shields (USGCRP, 2014) and to expansion of the upper oceanic layer as
ocean temperatures rise (Meehl et al., 2006; Rial, 2004; Overpeck et al., 2006). Along the U.S.
east coast and the Gulf coast, the increase in sea level between 1992 and 2100 could be in the
range of 0.2-2.0 meters (NOAA, 2012), which could, in turn, result in a greater degree of salt
water intrusion into drinking water sources in those regions. Currently, approximate 53 percent
of the U.S. population currently lives on what are considered coastal lands. Seawater intrusion,
along with more frequent disruptive meteorological events in a warmer atmosphere of intensified
circulations, likely present a problem to U.S. coastal communities including those of Florida, the
Gulf Coast, Southern California, and the Northeast.
Direct consequences of sea level rise and extreme meteorological events (e.g., hurricanes)
include the denudation of low-land coastal area (Figure 1-2) and physical damage to water
infrastructures. Hurricane Sandy, for example, damaged infrastructure and water services in
much of the Mid-Atlantic region including New York and New Jersey (USGCRP, 2014). Sea
level rise can also cause salt water intrusion, changing the quality of water sources and causing
corrosion of infrastructure.
-------
2090-2099
Bl: 1.1-2.9 m
B2:1.4-3.8 m
A2: 2.0-5.4 m
Sea level Rise Area in
Digital terrene model
^^
mm
\B2 T
Constance Beach
Rutherford's Beach
Guy of Mexico
(A) Elevation digital mapping of
SLR impacts in Atlantic and
the Gulf of Mexico coasts;
(B) Denudation of hurricane Rita
on the Gulf coast based on
Data from Robert Mason of
US Geological Survey.
Figure 1-2. Examples of coastal inundation due to sea level rise and disruptive storm surge
impacts. Arrows indicate approximate hurricane landfall locations.
Although sea level rise and storm surge are important manifestations of climate change
and have effects on water infrastructure, later parts of this report focus primarily on long-term
trends in precipitation. Nevertheless, advances in our understanding of the factors contributing
to sea level rise and improved agreement of models with observations have allowed researchers
to make these projections. Recently, NOAA published an online tool to predict sea level rise and
storm surge. One can calculate expected sea level rise at a specific coastal location of interests.
EPA Office of Water (OW) has developed a tool for assessment of water infrastructure risk
under the GHG emission and sea level rise scenarios6. It is noted, however, that uncertainty still
exists on the upper bound of future sea level rise. Sea level will continue to rise for centuries,
even if GHG emissions are reduced to the extent that atmospheric concentrations are stabilized.
Details are provided by the IPCC (2013).
2.2. U.S. Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
Public drinking water systems are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
(SDWA) and its amendments. The 1948 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which was
significantly reorganized in 1972 and is now referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA), is the
principal law that regulates pollution discharged into the nation's streams, lakes, and estuaries.
1 http ://water. epa. gov/infrastructure/watersecuritv/climate/stormsurge. cfm
-------
SDWA defines three types of public water systems, all of which provide water service to
at least 15 service connections or an average of at least 25 people for at least 60 days a year:
community water systems (CWS), transient non-community water systems (TNCWS), and non-
transient non-community water systems (NTNCWS). CWSs serve year-round residents and can
serve populations ranging from as few as 25 people to as many as several million people.
TNCWSs serve non-residential facilities such as campgrounds or gas stations, where individuals
consume the water for only a limited period of time. NTNCWSs also serve non-residential
populations, but serve at least 25 of the same people for at least 6 months per year, though not
year-round. Examples of NTNCWSs include drinking water systems at schools, hospitals, and
office buildings.
In 2011, there were approximately 153,000 water systems in the U.S. that met the federal
definition of a public water system (Table 1-1) (U.S. EPA, 2013b). Approximately one-third of
these systems were CWSs. This includes 11,721 CWSs using surface water and 39,624 CWSs
using groundwater sources, together serving approximately 300 million people (Table 1-2).
Although the vast majority of public water systems are relatively small (serving fewer than 3,300
people), most residential customers get their water from large systems (82 percent of CWS
customers are served by systems with a customer base of over 10,000 people). It should be noted
that not all public water systems deliver water directly from the source; some receive and
distribute treated water from another CWS. Public water systems that obtain their water through
interconnections with other public water systems are referred to as "consecutive systems."
As of 2008, there were approximately 14,800 wastewater treatment utilities (publicly
owned treatment works, or POTWs) in the United States, 96 percent of which had an existing
flow range of less than 10 million gallons per day (MGD). These POTWs provided service to
226 million people or 74 percent of the U.S. population. The remaining 26 percent of the
population are not connected to centralized treatment, but instead use some form of on-site
treatment system (U.S. EPA, 2008a).
Table 1-1. Size Category, Type, and Number of Public Water Systems in the U.S. in 2011*
System Size by Population served
CWS
NTNCWS
TNCWS
#Sys terns
Population served
% of Systems
%of Population
#Sys terns
Population served
% of Systems
%of Population
#Sys terns
Population served
% of Systems
%of Population
Ver Sma 1 1
<500
28,462
4,763,672
55%
2%
15,461
2,164,594
85%
35%
80,347
7,171,054
97%
57%
Small
501-3,300
13,737
19,661,787
27%
7%
2,566
2,674,694
14%
43%
2,726
2,630,931
3%
21%
Medium
3,301-10,000
4,936
28,737,564
10%
10%
132
705,320
1%
11%
92
514,925
0%
4%
Large
10,001-100,000
3,802
108,770,014
7%
36%
18
441,827
0%
7%
13
334,715
0%
3%
Very La rge
>100,000
419
137,283,104
1%
46%
1
203,000
0%
3%
1
2,000,000
0%
16%
Totals
51,356
299,216,141
100%
100%
51,356
6,189,435
100%
100%
83,179
12,651,625
100%
100%
Note: *-U.S. EPA(20013b).
-10-
-------
Since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, biological or "secondary" treatment of
wastewater (as a supplement to "primary" mechanical treatment) has become increasingly
widespread. Between 1972 and 2008, the population served by POTWs that do not employ
biological treatment fell from 50 million to 3.8 million (U.S. EPA, 2008a). In 2008, there were
approximately 600,000 miles of publically owned sewer pipe (U.S. EPA, 2008a).
Table 1-2. Number of Public Water Systems and Population Served by Source of Water*
System Size by Population
served
CWS
NTNCWS
TNCWS
#Systems
Population served
% of Systems
% of Population
#Systems
Population served
% of Systems
% of Population
#Systems
Population served
% of Systems
% of Population
Groundwater
39,624
86,585,984
77%
29%
15,461
2,164,594
85%
35%
80,347
7,171,054
97%
57%
Surface Water
11,721
212,573,760
23%
71%
2,566
2,674,694
14%
43%
2,726
2,630,931
3%
21%
Unknown
11
7,914
0%
0%
132
705,320
1%
11%
92
514,925
0%
4%
Totals
51,356
299,216,141
100%
100%
51,356
6,189,435
100%
100%
83,179
12,651,625
100%
100%
Note: *-U.S. EPA (20013b).
2.2.1. Drinking Water Infrastructure National Needs
Drinking water system infrastructure includes the surface water intakes and wells,
treatment plants, transmission and distribution pipes, pumps, valves, storage tanks, meters,
fittings, and other appurtenances that are necessary for providing safe drinking water to
consumers' taps. Public water systems maintained more than 2 million miles of distribution
mains as of 2006, of which half were between six and ten inches in diameter (U.S. EPA, 2009a).
As of 2003, public water systems also had an estimated 154,000 finished water storage facilities
(AWWA, 2003). Community public water systems replaced over 56,000 miles of pipe between
2001 and 2006, and added nearly 225,000 miles of new pipe in that same period (U.S. EPA,
2009a). In addition to providing consumers with potable water, water distribution systems often
must also supply water for non-potable uses, such as fire suppression and landscape irrigation.
Upkeep of the nation's drinking water infrastructure represents an enormous financial
liability. In its fifth report to Congress on the Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and
Assessment (DWINSA), U.S. EPA (2013a) estimated that the 20-year drinking water
infrastructure needs of the country's CWSs will reach $384.2 billion for the period of January 1,
2011 through December 31, 2030. This estimate reflects the needs of CWSs and not-for-profit
-11-
-------
non-community water systems to continue to provide clean and safe drinking water to their
customers for the year-2011 population levels. The need includes installation of new and
advanced infrastructure as well as rehabilitation or replacement of deteriorated or undersized
infrastructure as such rehabilitation or replacement becomes necessary during the 20-year
DWINSA study period of January 2011 through December 2030.
Table 1-3. 2011 DWINSA Findings by Public Water System Size*
Total National 20-Year Need
(in $billion of January 2011 dollars)
System Size and Type
Large Community Water Systems
(serving >100,000 people)
Medium Community Water Systems
(serving 3,301 to 100,000 people)
Small Community Water Systems
(serving <3,300 people)
Not-for-profit Non-community Water Systems
Total State and U.S. Territory Need
American Indian Water Systems
Alaska Native Village Water Systems
Costs Associated with Proposed and Recently
Promulgated Regulations (Taken from EPA
Economic Analysis)
Total National Need
Need
$145.1
$161.8
$64.5
$4.6
$2.7
$0.6
4.9
$376.0
384.2
Note: *-U.S. EPA(2013a).
The findings of the 2011 DWINSA show that the nation's largest CWSs (serving
>100,000 people) account for $145.1 billion, or 39.1 percent, of the total national need. Medium-
sized CWSs (serving from 3,301 to 100,000 people) and small CWSs (serving 3,300 and fewer
people) also have substantial needs of $161.8 billion and $64.5 billion, respectively (Table 1-3).
The total national 20-year infrastructure funding need of over $380 billion reported by the 2011
DWINSA represents a continued increase over previous assessments (Table 1-4).
Table 1-4. DWINSA Comparison of 20-Year National Need*
DWINSA Year
National Need
1995
$227.3
1999
$224.8
2003
$375.9
2007
$379.7
2011
$384.2
Note: * - The Need Estimate in Billions of January 2011 Dollars. From U.S. EPA (2013a)
-12-
-------
An American Water Works Association (AWWA) analysis has incorporated future
population growth into its estimates of capital needs. AWWA reported that it would cost at least
$1 trillion between 2011 and 2035 and $1.7 trillion between 2011 and 2050 to restore existing
drinking water systems as they reach the end of their useful lives and expand them to
accommodate projected population growth (AWWA, 2012). AWWA also concluded the costs
were distributed more heavily in the south and west regions of the country (Table 1-5). Figure
1-3 defines the regions used in the AWWA report. The AWWA regions were delineated based
on population dynamics and historical patterns of pipe installation, so their populations are not
identical in size.
Since 1988, ASCE has periodically prepared a Report Card that assesses the condition of
the nation's public infrastructure. The assessment considers 16 types of infrastructure, including
drinking water, wastewater, inland waterways, levees, ports, and dams. Of the 16 general
infrastructure areas, the water resources categories receive among the lowest marks. Since 2001,
drinking water has consistently received a mark of "D" or "D-" (ASCE 2013).
WEST
MIDWEST
Figure 1-3. Regions used in the AWWA "Buried no Longer" report (AWWA, 2012).
The 2011 DWINSA breaks the total national need into five categories (Figure 1-4). As in
the previous four DWINSAs, a majority of the need (in this case $247.5 billion, or 64.4 percent)
is for transmission and distribution pipe, pump stations, and appurtenances. Although treatment
plants or elevated storage tanks are usually the most visible components of a water system, most
of a system's infrastructure is underground in the form of transmission and distribution mains.
Failure of transmission and distribution mains can interrupt the delivery of water or lead to a loss
of pressure, which can allow backflow of contaminated water into the system. Broken
transmission lines can also disrupt the treatment process.
-------
Table 1-5. Aggregate Needs for Investment in Water Mains through 2035 and 2050 by Region*
Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Total
2011-2035 Totals (millions of 2010$)
Replacement
$92,218
$146,997
$204,357
$82,866
$526,438
Growth
$16,525
$25,222
$302,782
$153,756
$498,285
Percent
Increase
17.9%
17.2%
148.2%
185.5%
94.7%
Total
$108,743
$172,219
$507,139
$236,622
$1,024,723
2011-2050 Totals (millions of 2010$)
Replacement
$155,101
$242,487
$394,219
$159,476
$951,283
Growth
$23,200
$36,755
$492,493
$249,794
$802,242
Percent
Increase
15.0%
15.2%
124.9%
156.6%
84.3%
Total
$178,301
$279,242
$886,712
$409,270
$1,753,525
Note: * - from AWWA (2012)
-14-
-------
The second largest category of need is treatment projects, totaling $72.5 billion or 18.9
percent of the total need. Treatment projects involve the installation of technologies such as
filtration, disinfection, corrosion control, and aeration to reduce or eliminate contaminants. The
remaining categories of need include finished (i.e., treated) water storage infrastructure ($39.5
billion or 10.3 percent), source water infrastructure ($20.5 billion or 5.3 percent), and
miscellaneous projects ($4.2 billion or 1.1 percent). The storage project category includes the
cost to construct new tanks or rehabilitate or replace existing finished water storage tanks.
Construction of new tanks is necessary if the system cannot provide adequate flows and pressure
to existing consumers during peak demand periods. Many projects in this category involve
rehabilitating existing tanks to prevent structural failures or sanitary defects that can allow
microbiological contamination. The source water infrastructure category includes projects that
are necessary to obtain or sustain safe supplies of surface water or groundwater, such as
groundwater wells or surface water intake structures. Examples of projects in the miscellaneous
category include emergency power generators not associated with a specific system component,
computer and automation equipment, and projects for system security.
Total National Source:
Need Treatmem: ^$20.5,5.3%
Transmission H_—Other: $4.2,
and 1-1%
Distribution: Storage:
$247-5' W $39.5, 10.3%
64.4%
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.
Figure 1-4. Total 20-year need by project type (in billions of January 2011
Dollars) (U.S. EPA, 2013a).
The SDWA requires that public water systems meet national standards to protect
consumers from the harmful effects of contaminated drinking water. Some of the infrastructure
funding needs (10.9 percent) reported by the 2011 DWINSA are directly attributable to SDWA
regulations (U.S. EPA, 2013a). While most of the total need is not driven by compliance with a
particular regulation, properly maintaining water system infrastructure is both economical in the
long run and protective of public health.
-15-
-------
For the 2011 DWINSA, EPA sought to capture data on climate readiness projects to help
facilitate communications about this emerging issue. Climate readiness was defined as adapting
to and addressing climate change impacts on drinking water system infrastructure. The intent of
the effort was to compile additional information to estimate, in very general terms, the extent to
which projects that were included in the DWINSA are also related to climate change adaptation.
Identifying a project as related to climate readiness was voluntary and did not affect project
evaluation and acceptance for the DWINSA.
Survey respondents were asked to identify which projects were related to climate
readiness and to indicate the concern being addressed and the type of information identifying the
concern. EPA did not explicitly define what constitutes a climate readiness project or what are
the appropriate rationales or data to support the consideration of climate readiness; respondents'
best professional judgment was relied upon for the determination.
Only a limited number of 2011 DWINSA respondents reported climate readiness projects
(164 projects from 44 systems, or fewer than 1.5 percent of the responding systems). One state
accounted for over half the reported climate readiness needs. It is not clear whether that
particular state actually has more climate readiness projects than other states or whether there
were state-by-state differences in willingness to answer the question. Since the question was
voluntary and did not play a role in determining infrastructure needs, it is likely that many
climate readiness projects went unreported. This is corroborated by recent research, funded by
the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF), which found via a series of regional
workshops that utilities throughout the country were engaged in efforts of one kind or another.
The next iteration of the DWINSA, in 2015, may delve further into climate readiness; the limited
2011 data on climate readiness may at least help to increase dialogue around the DWINSA
regarding climate readiness.
The need to replace aging infrastructure is compounded by a number of factors. In
addition to climate change, these include conservative or traditional design methods, increasingly
stringent standards and regulations, negligence in maintenance and repair, and public concern
about the quality of water at the tap. Utilities and government will need to take the lead in order
to ensure a reliable supply of high quality water at the tap, to meet regulatory requirements, and
to respond to customer needs while controlling costs (Clark et al., 1988; 1991a,b; 1999;
Westerhoffetal., 2005).
2.2.2. Wastewater Infrastructure National Needs
In 2008, EPA conducted its 15th assessment of the estimated cost of needed construction
of all POTWs in the U.S. (U.S. EPA, 2008a). The Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) was
based on a comprehensive census survey of more than 30,000 water quality programs and
projects that are generally eligible for funding under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) program.
According to the 2008 CWNS, the estimated total POTW construction needs for the
nation for the next 20 years is $298.1 billion. This represents a 41 percent increase over the
needs reported in the 2004 CWNS. Figure 1-5 summarizes these needs. Of the total national need
of $298.1 billion, $82.6 billion is for collection systems (pipe repair and new pipes), $105.2
-16-
-------
billion is for treatment systems, $63.6 billion is for combined sewer overflow (CSO) corrections,
and $42.3 is for stormwater management.
Of the $82.6 billion in needs for pipe repair and new pipe in 2008, 51 percent of the
needs are associated with repairs. This reflects a steady increase compared with previous years.
The increase in the relative need for pipe repair reflects communities' efforts to plan for the
correction of problems related to separate storm sewer systems (namely, sanitary sewer
overflows or SSOs). SSO occurrence is associated with wet weather flows, primarily due to
storm water infiltration or overflows in heavy rains, structural failure of pipes, pump station
failures, and operator errors in treatment facilities. Climate-related precipitation changes are
highly relevant to these needs.
Category VI:
Stormwater
Management Programs
S42.3B, 14.2%
Category X:
Recycled Water
Distribution
S4.4B, 1.5%
Categories I and II:
Wastewater
Treatment Systems
Category V:
Combined Sewer
Overflow Correction
$82.68, 27.7%
Categories III and IV:
Pipe Repair and New Pipes
Figure 1-5. Total documented needs in the clean water needs survey (January
2004 dollars) (U.S. EPA, 2008a).
In addition, many communities have needs associated with CSOs ($63.6 billion
nationally) (U.S. EPA, 2008a). CSOs occur in many older cities where sanitary sewage and
stormwater runoff are collected in a single sewage system. This type of sewer system provides
partially separated channels for sanitary sewage and stormwater runoff. It provides backup
capacity for the runoff sewer when runoff volumes are unusually high. However, it is considered
to be antiquated and is vulnerable to overflow during peak rainfall events. A combined sewer
system allows a certain amount of untreated flow to discharge into a water course to keep the
systems from becoming surcharged in storm conditions. It often contains a screen which may be
-17-
-------
a mechanical or static arrangement depending on the frequency of spills per year. During heavy
rainfall, when the stormwater exceeds the sanitary flow, the sewage from homes would be
diluted. However, combined sewage can be a major environmental problem and municipalities
have begun to look for ways to mitigate the environmental effects of such overflows. As with
SSO needs, the climate-related precipitation changes are highly relevant to CSO needs.
The cost of providing adequate stormwater infrastructure represents another major need
in many urban areas. U.S. EPA (2008a) estimated that the development of adequate stormwater
infrastructure would require an expenditure of $42.3 billion.
Table 1-6. Comparison of total needs for water quality projects 2000-2008 in billions of dollars*.
Category
Number Name
1 Secondary Treatment
II Advanced Treatment
III-A Infiltration/Inflow Correction
MI-B Sewer Replacement /
IV-A New Collector Sewers
IV-B New Interceptor Sewers
V Combined Sewer Overflow
VI Stormwater Management
X Recycled Water Distribution
Total needs
Treatment (Categories 1 and II) only
Pipe Repairs and New Pipes (Categories III and IV) only
Category 1 to V subtotal
2000
48.6
26.9
10.8
22.2
18.8
19.6
66.7
7.3
220.9
75.5
71.4
213.6
2004
52.9
29.0
12.2
24.9
19.9
20.4
65.0
25.4
5.1
254.8
81.9
11 A
224.3
2008
59.9
45.3
8.2
33.7
21.4
19.4
63.6
42.3
4.4
298.1
105.2
82.7
251.5
Change 2004 to
2008
$bil
7.0
16.3
-4.0
8.8
1.5
-1.0
-1.4
16.9
-0.7
43.3
23.3
5.3
27.2
Percent
13.2
56.2
-32.8
35.3
7.5
-4.9
-2.2
66.5
-13.7
17.0
28.4
6.8
12.1
Note: * - from U.S. EPA (2008a).
Table 1-6 compares (in January 2008 dollars) the total needs for water quality projects in
the United States based on the 2000, 2004, and 2008 CWNS Reports to Congress (U.S. EPA,
2008a). The needs reported for the wastewater treatment, collection, and CSO correction
categories (Categories I through V) increased from $224.3 billion in the 2004 CWNS to $251.5
billion in 2008. This is a $27.2 billion (or 12.1 percent) increase. For collection and treatment
system needs, increases of $100 million or more each in only 100 facilities account for total
increases of $34.7 billion. These 100 facilities serve approximately 43 million people, or 14
percent of the U.S. population. An additional 55 facilities had needs that decreased by at least
$100 million each. The most significant increase in needs related to wastewater treatment and
collection is for advanced treatment (i.e., treatment for nutrient removal). Advanced treatment
needs increased by $16.3 billion, or 56.2 percent. In addition, needs for sewer line replacement
or rehabilitation increased by $8.8 billion or 35.3 percent, and needs associated with secondary
-18-
-------
(biological) wastewater treatment increased by $7.0 billion or 13.2 percent. Increases in
Categories I and II could be due to a variety of issues, including rehabilitation of aging
infrastructure, facility improvements to meet more protective water quality standards, and in
some cases, providing additional capacity to respond to and prepare for population growth.
As mentioned, the ASCE's periodic infrastructure Report Card evaluates the condition of
the nation's public wastewater infrastructure. Since 2001, wastewater has consistently received a
mark of "D" or "D-" (ASCE 2013).
2.3. Other Factors Affecting Infrastructure Sustainability
Sustainable infrastructure is designed to meet a range of future stresses and
contingencies. As discussed above, traditional water planning and engineering practices assumed
a stationary climate, and that assumption needs to be revisited. Other major planning
considerations that need to be taken into account when designing sustainable infrastructure
include population growth, spatial migration and demographic shifts, public health and
regulations, economic development, and other emerging issues such as energy production. These
factors are briefly described below.
2.3.1. Population Growth and Demographic Shifts
Population projections for the U.S. are available from the U.S. Census Bureau (among
other source). The Census Bureau's Population Projections Program creates projections of the
resident population for the U.S. and for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia7.
Projections of total U.S. populations are available on a yearly basis from 2012 to 2060 by age,
gender, and race. Projections at the state or regional level are also available for the period 2000-
2030. The U.S. Census Bureau projects an increase in the population of the U.S. from 314
million in 2012 to 420 million in 2060 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Figure 1-6 illustrates
expected population change (expressed as percentage change from 2012 to 2017) at the county
level. Figure 1-6 also shows the U.S. hydroclimatic province boundaries (red lines) that are
described in the Part II report. There is a great amount of spatial variation among different
regions, states and even counties. Notable population increases are expected across much of the
West, in parts of the Southeast (including along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts), and in many large
metropolitan areas. Comparatively, the Great Plain states and those in the traditional industrial
"rust belt" are expected to experience population declines. These population change trends are
projected to continue into the foreseeable future, though all population projections are associated
with some uncertainty and the uncertainty increases as the time horizon extends.
Population is a major factor affecting the quantity of water usage and the amount of
wastewater generated. Population change will have a strong impact on the adequacy of the water
resources infrastructure in the future. In order to plan for future water resources needs, utilities
and local planners typically make population projections. These projections utilize different
growth and development scenarios to predict future population at various spatial scales ranging
from the entire world, to countries, to regions and even at local levels. Means et al. (2005a) note
that both increases and decreases in population pose challenges to water utilities. Whereas
communities with burgeoning populations will have to find the resources to fund new facilities,
http://www.census.gov/population/projections/
-19-
-------
areas with static or shrinking populations face the challenge of a diminishing customer base,
resulting in a limited rate capacity to replace aging water infrastructure. On a local watershed
scale, especially in urban areas, the rate of population change with time and space is exacerbated
by land use policies in addition to natural constraints such as topography, surface water,
meteorological properties, etc.
Figure 1-6. Population change rate projections for 2012-2017 in contiguous U.S., showing
spatial disparities across the continent. Population data in 2014 are from ESRI.
In 2003, the Bureau of Reclamation (2003) observed that explosive population growth
was occurring in areas where water supplies are limited. Population growth in such regions
continues to place a significant burden on water resources. Some areas in the western U.^/or
example, where population is expected to continue to grow, receive less than one-fifth of the
annual precipitation that other areas of the country enjoy. In some areas the water supply will not
be adequate to meet all demands for water even in normal water years, while ongoing and
projected climate change will further worsen droughts and magnify the impacts of water
shortages (Brekke et al., 2009).
Local demographic changes drive land use changes and conversion that can further
compound and enhance the hydroclimatic and water quality changes in watershed scales. The
land use factor is examined comprehensively in Part III of this report. Demographic changes can
also confound adaptation measures. For example, water usage per capita in Las Vegas
metropolitan, Nevada shows an overall trend of steady decrease since 1990. The per-capita
water usage decreased by 20 percent due to water conservation measures. However, the total
population growth outpaced the water conservation effect. The population grew by 2 folds from
852,000 in 1990 to 1,951,000 by 2010 in the metropolitan statistical area. The combined effect
of climate-induced decrease in water availability and an increase in water demand led to a steady
decline of water level in the Lake Mead, a primary source water of the region. According to the
-------
monitoring data8, the water level declined more than 100 feet in the same period; this challenges
the local government in seeking for sustainable water resource management (Ranatunga et al.,
2014). This example obviously points to the importance that utilities will need to consider
human activity and incorporate projections of population change in water infrastructure planning.
Monthly Water Consumption (Gallon per Capita) 1990-2009
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year
Figure 1-7. Decrease of monthly average water consumption per capita in Las Vegas
metropolitan area, Nevada, showing steady decline since 1990. Data from
Southern Nevada Water Authority.
2.3.2. Public Health and Social Development
Historically, public health was the primary driving force behind the establishment of both
public drinking water supplies and municipal sewer systems and treatment plants in the U.S. As
a result of these advances, the most serious waterborne diseases such as cholera and typhoid
were virtually eliminated. However, public health concerns remain a challenge in water supply
and water/wastewater management.
Levin et al. (2002) assess the challenges facing the drinking water industry in the U.S. in
the 21st century from the public health viewpoint. Their analysis points to the inadequate
capacity of public water infrastructure to meet current needs, the compounding factors of climate
and land use changes, the risks of waterborne infectious diseases, the need for source water
protection, and the need to update and reevaluate regulations for addressing legal requirements
and new health data. Failures or inadequacies in sewer and stormwater infrastructure provide a
source of microbial contaminants that can enter into the water supply or contaminate natural
water courses. In fact, many of the recent significant waterborne disease outbreaks in North
America have been attributed to failures in the water supply and/or wastewater/stormwater
: www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/hourly/mead-elv.html
-21-
-------
infrastructure. Examples of such failures include the Salmonella contamination of the Gideon,
Missouri water system in 1990, the 1994 Cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee, and the 2000
waterborne outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Walkerton, Ontario.
There is a direct relationship between the state of the water/wastewater/stormwater
infrastructure and the incidence of waterborne disease. Microbial contaminants can enter
drinking water supplies through the following methods:
• Water treatment failure (breakthrough)
• Contamination of tanks by birds, humans, etc.
• Intrusion into pipes through cracks during transient negative pressure episodes
• Pipe breaks (after the break and/or during repair)
• Cross connections (opportunities for non-potable water to enter a potable water supply)
• New main installation
• Intentional contamination of a distribution system associated with a terrorist or criminal
act.
Kirmeyer et al. (2001) prioritized potential pathogen routes of entry and based on the
input from an expert panel identified the following infrastructure-related routes as high priority
mechanisms: water treatment breakthrough, transitory contamination (i.e., intrusion during
negative pressure episodes), cross connection, and water main repair/break.
In a presentation accepting the 2006 ASCE Simon W. Freese Award, Glen T. Daigger
(Daigger, 2007) highlighted the continuing public health challenges facing the environmental
and wastewater fields globally in the 21st century. He observed that as water demand increases
with a rising global population, simultaneously addressing the goals of environmental protection
and public health protection will pose a major challenge. To meet that challenge, an integrated
approach to urban water management will be necessary. Despite the traditional division of water
versus wastewater, both should now be viewed as resources and managed coherently to sustain
the needs of an increased population.
2.3.3. Economic Development
Economic development can increase resources available for infrastructure, including
those for water services, but can also increase the level of stress on infrastructure. One common
measure of economic development is growth of gross domestic product (GDP). GDP is defined
as the total market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given
period of time (usually a calendar year). Real GDP in the United States increased nearly 2.5
times between 1980 and 2013, as shown in Figure 1-8. This general pattern of long-term overall
growth masks differences by region. While growth has been positive in all regions since 2010,
annual regional growth has varied between a high of 5.8 percent in southwestern U.S. in 2012
down to a low of 0.6 percent in the southeastern U.S. in 2011, as shown in Figure 1-9.
As is the case with population increases, economic development can lead to increased use
of potable water and increased wastewater production. If development is associated with
increased urbanization, it also can increase stormwater runoff and non-point source pollution. An
-22-
-------
expansion or intensification of agriculture, including the animal and poultry industries, also can
increase water use, runoff, and non-point source pollution. While economic development has
historically led to increased demands on water, the impact of future economic development on
water use in the U.S. is uncertain.
18,000.00
16,000.00
14,000.00
12,000.00
10,000.00
8,000.00
6,000.00
4,000.00
2,000.00
0.00
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Figure 1-8. United States real GDP, 1980-2013. Data from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Figure 1-9. Annual percent change in real GDP by region, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Data
from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
The implications for water demand from some aspects and consequences of economic
development are not clear. Globalization and the shift of the U.S. economy from an industrial-
based economy to a service-oriented economy could significantly affect rates of water
consumption in the U.S. and internationally. Changes in agricultural practices, such as expanded
-23-
-------
adoption of drip irrigation, can reduce water demand and the amount of runoff, while increased
demand for certain crops can increase water use. In general, technological change could foster
further development that could increase the strain on the water resources infrastructure or, more
optimistically, could provide methods for mitigating the impacts of development. Daigger (2007)
argues that "further technological developments are crucial to fully and effectively implement
new approaches to urban water management that are inherently and significantly more
sustainable and that better serve the full range of people irrespective of their economic situation."
2.3.4. Emerging Drivers in Energy-Water Nexus
In water-energy nexus, the energy usage around the world is increasing and is a major
political, economic and environmental factor that requires consideration in planning of water
infrastructure adaptations. Figure 1-10 is an estimate of worldwide power usage from 1965 to
2006, broken down by the energy source. As illustrated, the world is experiencing an increasing
rate of growth in energy use and is largely dependent upon fossil fuels as sources of energy.
20000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Figure 1-10. Annual worldwide energy usage in terawatt-hours, 1965-2008 (BP, 2014).
Gleick (2006) observed that there is a strong linkage between the water and energy
sectors since water is required to produce and use energy, and energy is used to clean, transport
and use water. Most water supply and wastewater systems are dependent upon pumping and
most water and wastewater treatment plant components need sources of energy to perform their
functions. According to the Alliance to Save Energy (2002), the water and wastewater sectors are
responsible for about 2 to 3 percent of global energy use. However, in the absence of a
comprehensive energy policy for the U.S., there is much uncertainty of the likely impacts of
energy on the water resources infrastructure. Some potential impacts include:
• Significantly increased water usage in parts of the country to accommodate agriculture
and processing costs associated with biofuels (NRC, 2006).
-24-
-------
• Increased construction costs due to increased energy costs and petrol-based products such
as PVC and HOPE pipes.
• Potential (unknown) impacts of renewable energy methods (wind, solar, hydro power)
and increased nuclear power generation.
• Increasing global energy usage and its likely impact on energy availability and cost. This
may force water and wastewater utilities to achieve greater energy efficiency in order to
offset energy costs.
• Possibly, increased frequency in energy shortages. Water and wastewater systems will
need increased capability to switch to alternate or backup energy supplies (Means et al.,
2005b).
• The possibility that new energy-intensive treatment technologies may not achieve their
expected potential despite their advantages (Means et al., 2005b).
These reported general trends in energy production are consistent with the investigation
results of the EPA WRAP research activities (U.S. EPA, 2014e). Detailed data and analysis on
the water-energy nexus is contained in a separate companion EPA report titled "The Impact of
Traditional and Alternative Energy Production on Water Resources: Assessment and Adaptation
Studies" (U.S. EPA, 2014o).
2.4. Summary of Regulations and Regulatory Programs
In recent years, extensive legal reviews have been undertaken to evaluate the capacity of
existing legal and regulatory frameworks for policy-making in the areas of climate change
mitigation and adaptation (e.g., Ruhl, 2010; Fischman, 2012; Craig, 2010). The Supreme Court,
in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527 (2011), held that the Clean Air
Act and EPA action authorized by the Act displace any federal common-law right to seek
abatement of CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants. This opinion, in effect, reaffirms
EPA's authority to regulate in this area. See also, Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).
Regulatory actions driven by court litigations and legal clarification are less optimal than stand-
alone climate change laws (Ruhl, 2010; Craig, 2010), but certain climate change mitigation and
adaptation activities can be undertaken based upon existing environmental statutes, including
CWA, the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Craig,
2010; 2009; Reitze, Jr., 2011; Adler, 2010).
This section of the report highlights sections of major legislation and aspects of existing
regulatory programs relevant to climate change. Specifically, the discussion on the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) in Section 2.4.1 profiles existing drinking water regulations and identifies
possible compliance and public-health protection challenges that utilities may face as a result of
climate change. Section 2.4.2 summarizes the Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations and programs
and the mechanisms they provide for managing climate change impacts to surface waters.
Secondly in Section 2.4.2, the CAA regulations are described on how they are designed to reduce
or track GHG emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change, and in due course, how the
climate mitigation actions affect water resources and the function of water infrastructures.
Finally, Section 2.4.4 identifies programs and initiatives at EPA specifically intended to produce
-25-
-------
a better understanding of the impacts of climate change, mitigate these impacts, or help water
systems improve infrastructure sustainability in response to climate change.
2.4.1. Safe Drinking Water Act
Concern over waterborne disease outbreaks in the U.S. since the late 1890s, especially in
industrialized river valleys, has translated into water quality legislation at the federal level
starting with the Interstate Quarantine Act of 1893. The first drinking water regulation,
promulgated in 1912, prohibited the use of a common drinking water cup on trains. Federal
drinking water standards for 28 substances were issued by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS)
prior to 1962, but they applied only to interstate carriers (Grindler, 1967; Clark, 1978). In 1974,
Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to ensure consistent drinking water
standards across the country and initially adopted the PHS standards. Historically most drinking
water utilities concentrated on ensuring the quality and safety of drinking water through
treatment at the treatment plant. Amendments to the SDWA in 1986 and 1996 shifted the focus
from contaminant prevention through treatment to source water protection and enhanced water
system management, that is, a comprehensive protection program from source water to the tap
(U.S. EPA, 2013c). Water quality in the distribution system became a focus of regulatory action
and has become a major focus of drinking water utilities. However, maintaining a high level of
water quality at consumer's tap is a challenge because water quality change occurs in extensive,
lengthy distribution pipe networks (NRC, 2007).
Rules and regulations promulgated under the SDWA (Figure 1-11), requiring drinking
water utilities to meet guidelines and standards to protect public health from specific drinking
water contaminants. When regulating a contaminant, EPA first sets a non-enforceable standard
referred to as a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG). An MCLG is set at a level at which
no known or anticipated adverse human health effects occur, with a margin for safety. Then EPA
sets an enforceable public health standard for levels of a contaminant allowable in drinking water
or (where numeric standards are not appropriate) a mandatory treatment approach. An
enforceable drinking water standard is known as a maximum contaminant level (MCL).
Depending on technological limitations (taking cost into account), sometimes MCLs are set
equal to MCLGs and sometimes they diverge. EPA has published standards for 93 constituents,
including 68 organic and inorganic chemicals, seven radioactive contaminants ("radionuclides"),
11 pathogens/microorganisms, and seven disinfectants or disinfection by-products. Together, the
EPA guidelines, standards, and treatment approaches are designed to ensure that drinking water
is adequately treated and managed by water utilities to protect public health (Clark and Feige,
1993).
2.4.1.1. Climate Change Impacts and Relevance
Several SDWA rules specifically target drinking water quality within the distribution
system, including the Total Coliform Rule (TCR) and Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR), the
Disinfectants/Disinfection By-Products Rules (DBPRs), the Surface Water Treatment Rules
(SWTRs), the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), and the Ground Water Rule (GWR). A brief
description of these rules and programs are provided in Appendix I-A. Climate change may
affect the ability of water utilities to comply with many of these regulations (WRF, 2009). An
-26-
-------
Phase II/V Rule
Phase II/V Rules: Chemical Contaminants
promulgated July 8,1987, Jan 30,1991. July 1,1991
effective Jan 1,1988, Jan 9,1989, July 1.1991
July 30,1992. Jan 1,1993
ACCNSCM
Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Contaminant Monitoring
promulgated Jan 22, 2001; effective Mar 23, 2001
FBRR
Filter Backwash Recycling Rule
promulgated June 8. 2001: effective Dec 8. 2003
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act, enacted 1974
TCR
Total Colilorm Rule
promulgated June 29, 1989; effective Dec 31, 1990
SWTR
Surface Water Treatment Rule
promulgated June 29. 1989; effective Dec 31, 1990
Bioterrorism Act
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Act of 2002
enacted June 12. 2002 (PL 107-188)
LT1ESWTR
Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
promulgated Jan 14. 2002; effective Jan 1. 2005
RTCR
Revised Total Coliform Rule
promulgated Feb 13, 2013
effective Apr 1,2016
LCR
Lead and Copper Rule
promulgated June 7, 1991; effective Dec 7, 1992
LCR Minor Revisions promulgated Jan 12, 2000
LCR Short-Term Revisions promulgated Oct 10, 2007
NIPDWR:
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
enacted between 1975 and 1976
! 86SDWAA
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986
enacted June 16. 1986
96SDWAA
. TTH M Safe Drinl(in9 Water Act Amendments of 1996
Total Trihalomethane Rule enacted Aug 6. 1996
promulgated Nov 29. 1979;
effective Nov 29, 1980 for PWSs serving 75,000;
effective Nov 29. 1981 for PWSs
Rule requirements replaced by TTHM
requirements of the Stage 1DBPR IESWTR
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
promulgated Dec 16. 1998; effective Jan 1, 2002
DBPR1
Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct Rule
promulgated Dec 16. 1998; effective Jan 1. 2002
RADS
Radionuclides Rule
promulgated Dec 7. 2000
effective June 2001
GWR
Ground Water Rule
promulgated Nov 8, 2006
effective Dec 1,2009
LT2ESWTR
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
promulgated Jan 5, 2006; effective rolling compliance
DBPR2
Stage 2 Disinfection By-Product Rule
promulgated Jan 4. 2006; effective rolling compliance
Figure 1-11. Evolution of federal drinking water regulations (updated from Panguluri et al., 2006).
-27-
-------
increase in extreme storm events increases the risk of flooding and wildfires, resulting in erosion
and surface runoff which may affect the quality of source waters and potentially pose problems
for water treatment plants. Examples of water quality issues related to flooding and wildfires
include elevated levels of turbidity, debris in reservoirs, and nutrient and pollutant loading.
Changes in precipitation amounts and seasonal variation can also challenge management of
water supplies. For instance, changes in rainfall and snowpack can change patterns of spring
runoff, cause coastal and inland flooding, decrease the summer water supply, and affect the rate
of groundwater recharge. Sea level rise will threaten coastal infrastructure, possibly damaging
water intakes located in estuaries and causing salt water corrosion of buried infrastructure. Salt
water intrusion into vulnerable groundwater supplies or salinization of freshwater supplies due to
flooding represent additional risks. These effects may be compounded by storm surges. Higher
temperatures may lead to drought conditions, as less summer rainfall and increased
evapotranspiration lead to a decrease in surface water availability and an increase in urban and
agricultural water demand. Warmer freshwater temperatures will also affect water quality, due to
reduced dissolved oxygen levels, increased rates of algal blooms, increased bacteria and fungi
content, and concentration of pollutants.
More information of climate risk imposed on regulatory programs is available in EPA's
National Water Strategy on Climate Change (U.S. EPA, 2014o). The aspects discussed in this
adaptation report includes:
• The Total Coliform Rule (54 FR 27544; U.S. EPA, 1989a) requires adequate disinfection
of drinking water to manage biological risk. As discussed in Section 2.1.1, higher risks of
bacterial contamination drinking water may occur under conditions of climate change due
to higher water temperatures and increased frequency of sewer and treatment plant
overflows. The increased risk from biological contaminants such as cyanobacteria in
source water is further detailed in investigations in Part II of this report.
• In the U.S., chlorine and chloramines are most often used for treatment because they are
very effective disinfectants, and residual concentrations can be measured and maintained
in the water distribution system. Some utilities (primarily in the U.S. and Europe) use
ozone and chlorine dioxide as oxidizing agents for primary disinfection prior to the
addition of chlorine or chloramines for residual disinfection. While disinfectants are
effective in controlling many microorganisms, they can react with naturally occurring
organic matter (NOM) and inorganic matter in the treated and/or distributed water to
form potentially harmful disinfection by-products (DBFs). As shown later in this report
(Part II, III and IV), climate change can induce significant changes in natural organic
matters (NOM) and total organic carbon (TOC) in source water. The case studies and
modeling analysis conclusively point to the risk of DBF regulation violations. For
adaptation, a framework of monitoring-modeling and engineering adaptation analysis has
been established and presented in this report.
Higher water temperatures under future climate scenarios could result in different NOM
reactivity to disinfectants and thus different DBF-formation potential. Under such
circumstances, current standards and treatment may not adequately address future risks to
public health from DBFs. This possibility is not assessed in this report, but is indicated in
published studies (e.g., Towler et al., 2011; Whitehead et al., 2009).
-28-
-------
The SWTR and its three subsequent rules - the Interim Enhanced SWTR (63 FR 69478,
U.S. EPA, 1989b), Long-Term 1 Enhanced SWTR (67 FR 1812; U.S. EPA, 2002b), and
Long-Term 2 Enhanced SWTR (LT2ESWTR) (71 FR 6135; U.S. EPA, 2006a),
collectively increase the stringency of turbidity standards with a purpose to control
Cryptosporidium and pathogen control while complying with DBPR requirements.
As noted in Section 2.1.1, climate change can induce changes in surface water quality
including total organic carbon (TOC), NOM, turbidity, micronutrients (e.g., nitrogen and
phosphorus), and potentially also biological contaminants such as microcystin. The
research described in Part III and IV of this report further quantify some of these changes
and their potential impacts on drinking water supplies. Such changes may make it more
challenging for systems to meet the requirements of the SWTR rules. For instance,
climate-induced flooding may increase sediment loading into reservoirs which may
increase turbidity levels and could significantly reduce the useful life of a storage
reservoir or require sediment removal. During a drought, pollutants accumulate on land
surface and on other surfaces, such as pavement and structures. These pollutants may be
rapidly flushed as large loads of pollutants into surface water bodies during high
precipitation events that may follow the drought conditions (e.g., Walker et al., 1991).
Climate change may affect compliance with the Lead and Cooper Rule (LCR) in two
ways. One is the effect of temperature on pipe corrosion. The relationship is not entirely
straightforward. Secondly, treatment undertaken to mitigate climate change effects may
indirectly affect the lead and copper action levels. Treatment to address one public health
risk may have unintended consequences on the chemical or biological composition of the
water and contribute to other risks. Treatment installed to meet the DBPRs, for example,
may affect compliance with the LCR: e.g., the use of chloramine as a residual
disinfectant can affect the chemical properties of the water, which subsequently can
increase lead and copper corrosion.
The Ground Water Rule (GWR) (71 FR 65574; U.S. EPA, 2006b) require that states use
a risk-based methodology to determine which groundwater systems are vulnerable to
fecal contamination, which may contain viruses or bacteria that are harmful to humans
(Appendix I-A). Climate change can change ground recharge and flow systems, such as
groundwater depletion in current drought-stricken California, and thus may affect the
GWR-related groundwater qualities. However, climate change impacts on groundwater
is relatively less understood than on surface water.
The EPA Chemical Phase Rules apply to three contaminant groups: Inorganic Chemicals
(lOCs), Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs), and Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs)
(Appendix I-A). Changes in temperature and precipitation could lead to increased
concentrations of contaminants covered by these Rules: for instance, as noted in Section
2.3, there may be circumstances where climate change may lead to increased nitrification
of source water. In addition, in cases where drought or source degradation require a water
system to seek an alternate water source, any new source must be evaluated to ensure that
the system will be able to deliver water that complies with the Chemical Phase Rules.
Under SDWA, as amended, EPA is required to periodically publish Candidate
Contaminant List (CCL) that includes microbial and chemical contaminants not currently
-29-
-------
regulated but known or considered likely to occur in water systems as candidates for
regulation (74 FR 51850; U.S. EPA, 2009c). More information is provided in Appendix
I-A. The CCL and Regulatory Determinations programs provide a flexible mechanism to
identify and respond to emerging threats to drinking water quality as climatic conditions
change over time. The climate change can alter the environmental conditions under
which the risk is evaluated and CCL is developed.
• The Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program under SDWA regulates CO2 injection
in GHG geological sequestration. It also regulates injection of production water,
reclaimed water, or storm water into underground formation for storage and later
retrieval. The practice, known as aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), can be used to
reduce the water supply vulnerability due to climate-induced water availability problem
and strong seasonable variations. However, ASR is known to associate with groundwater
quality concerns. The holding aquifer can be contaminated from micro-contaminants
from injected water, such as personal care products, and from remobilization of
indigenous contaminants (e.g., arsenic) in the formation materials.
2.4.1.2. Additional measures to protect public health
Adequate protection of public health requires drinking water utilities to do more than
simply satisfy federal and state regulatory requirements. This fact was highlighted in February
2014 by the case of a water utility in Charleston, West Virginia, where over 300,000 people were
affected by a 5-day boil water notice after a release of 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM)
from a Freedom Industries facility into the Elk River, a tributary of the Kanawha River. While
MCHM is not a contaminant currently regulated under SDWA, the community experienced
health effects such as rash, nausea, vomiting, and cough from drinking the water.
The case of Charleston, West Virginia, illustrates the confounding effects that weather
and climate can have as a utility seeks to fulfill its public health mission. The spill's effects were
compounded because the water system could not take the river intake off-line on account of
extreme weather. The water system reported that it had "experienced a significant number of line
breaks caused by extreme cold associated with the polar vortex followed by warming weather.
Because of the line breaks and customers letting their water drip to prevent freezing of their
pipes (which we encourage), the system storage was low and losing water even though the water
treatment plant was running at near full capacity" (West Virginia American Water, 2014).
Therefore, SDWA required the development of source water assessment plans, which can
take account of risks posed by both regulated and unregulated contaminants from upstream
pollution sources, but implementation of plans and protection activities has been left up to the
discretion of states and systems. One of the strategic actions identified in EPA's 2012 National
Water Program Strategy is to encourage and support states and local authorities in implementing
their source water assessments, delineations, and protection plans to address anticipated climate
change impacts (U.S. EPA, 2013d). Wellhead protection plans, which are not required by the
GWR, will become increasingly important to protect the integrity of wellheads during floods.
Storm surges or flooding may inundate low-lying wells or treatment plants, which may introduce
contamination into the well casing and affect the ability of water systems to treat and provide
safe water.
-30-
-------
2.4.2. Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the principal law governing the physical, chemical, and
biological condition of waters of the United States (33 U.S.C. Section 1251(a); CWA Section
101(a)). Enacted in 1948 as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the CWA was revised by
amendments in 1972. The 1972 amendments created a framework for regulating pollutant
discharge to the nation's waters for implementation at federal and state level. Although
additional amendments enacted in 1977, 1981, and 1987 modified some provisions, the basic
elements of the 1972 amendments remain in effect today.
The primary relevance of the CWA to climate change is the regulatory and non-
regulatory mechanisms it offers for managing climate change impacts to surface waters rather
than climate change mitigation (i.e., reduction of GHG emissions) (Craig, 2010). Recognizing
the fundamental link between climate and aquatic ecosystem conditions, EPA and states have
already begun to incorporate climate change considerations in CWA program planning and
implementation (U.S. EPA, 2012f). Major CWA sections that relate to water infrastructure and
climate change adaptation include:
• Water quality standards (WQS) can be used to address climate change impacts in several
ways. New WQS may be established as climate-driven pollutant loading issues emerge
and existing WQS can be updated to reflect current climate change concepts and data.
WQS revisions may include updates to each of the three WQS components (designated
uses, numeric/narrative criteria, anti-degradation provisions). For example, existing water
temperature criteria may be updated to reflect actual and expected climate-driven shifts in
stream thermal regimes. In addition, EPA has pointed to anti-degradation policy updates
as a means to protect designated uses that are particularly susceptible to climate change
(U.S. EPA, 2012f). New and revised WQS can have cascading effects on storm water and
wastewater dischargers, including modifications to NPDES permits as discussed next.
• NPDES permits for separate sanitary sewer and combined sewer systems typically
include provisions to report, minimize, and prevent SSOs and CSOs. Because SSOs and
CSOs can occur during periods of heavy rainfall, the climate change impact is apparent.
Regions projected to receive more frequent and intense storm events are at-risk for
increased SSO or CSO discharges. In 2012, the NPDES Permit Writers' Manual (U.S.
EPA, 2010c) was updated calling attention to climate change considerations when setting
effluent limitations for NPDES permits. These revisions reflect a shift from the use of
historic data alone to incorporating projected future conditions as well.
• Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to develop a list of impaired waters (those
waters not meeting applicable water quality standards) and to develop one or more
TMDLs for each impaired water body. See Appendix I-A for details. Climate change has
the potential to increase the number of water body impairments and TMDLs required.
This is due to increased stress placed on aquatic ecosystems and/or as a result of modified
WQS. Climate change can be integrated into TMDL calculations by evaluating pollutant
loads and impacts under a range of projected climatic shifts. The use of climate change
projections may result in wasteload allocations (WLAs) and load allocations (LAs) that
differ from those calculated if static climate conditions were assumed. Furthermore,
climate change may be factored into decisions on the specific water quality target used to
-31 -
-------
determine the TMDL. Although water quality targets are usually equivalent to criteria set
forth in water quality standards, alternative targets may be used where water quality
standards have not been updated to reflect climate change impacts. Finally, because
TMDLs follow an adaptive management approach, existing TMDLs may be revisited and
revised to incorporate actual and expected climate change data.
• The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and Section 319 NFS program both
have the potential to serve as key funding sources for projects that increase the resiliency
of wastewater and stormwater infrastructure to climate change. For example, the CWSRF
can fund infrastructure upgrades to prevent SSOs or CSO during large rainfall events.
The CWSRF also sets aside a portion of funds for green infrastructure projects in the
Green Project Reserve (GPR). The GPR and Section 319 grants can fund stormwater
BMPs that prevent runoff from entering sewer systems such as bioretention basins,
constructed wetlands, and pervious pavement.
2.4.3. Clean Air Act
A comprehensive response to climate change includes both adaptation and mitigation.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has enacted regulatory actions to control air pollutant emissions
including GHG. This section provides an overview of EPA's regulatory efforts that also have
implications for water resources management and water infrastructure adaptations. A complete
analysis of the impact of regulatory programs on water resources from the Nation's energy
productions is provided in an EPA companion report (U.S. EPA, 2014o).
On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed an Endangerment Finding and a
Cause or Contribute Finding for GHG under section 202(a) of the CAA (U.S. EPA, 2009a). Six
well-mixed GHGs in the atmosphere were found to threaten public health and welfare.
Additionally, emissions of these gases from new motor vehicles were found to contribute to
GHG pollution (which, again, threatens public health and welfare).
In addition to the findings related to GHG mobile sources, EPA has also published a set
of regulations under the CAA for stationary source GHG mitigation. New regulations were
proposed in June 2014 to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants by 30 percent by
2030 when compared to 2005 carbon emissions (U.S. EPA, 2014c). EPA identified four
measures available to significantly reduce carbon intensity from the power sector:
• Improving efficiency at existing coal-fired power plants
• Increasing utilization of existing natural gas fired power plants
• Expanding the use of wind, solar, or other low- or zero-emitting alternatives, and
• Increasing energy efficiency in homes and businesses.
As described in a recent EPA report (U.S. EPA, 2014o), traditional and alternative energy
production can exert significant impacts on water resources in the context of air and fuel
programs. The intensity of water use via consumptive water loss for the major forms of
thermoelectric generation in the U.S. were assessed from detailed engineering analyses (Table 1-
7). Note that the lower values within the ranges for nuclear and coal systems represent older
single-pass (i.e., no cooling tower with direct discharge of cooling water) systems that are being
phased out of use due to EPA regulations limiting water discharge temperatures. With respect to
-32-
-------
general trends, transitioning electric generation from coal-fired power plants to plants with
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)/CO2-capture represents an opportunity to
reduce water use intensity by approximately 50 percent per plant that is transitioned.
Transitioning from coal or natural gas-fired boilers (Rankine cycle) to natural gas combined
cycle (NGCC) represents an opportunity to reduce water intensity by approximately 75 percent
per plant that is transitioned (U.S. EPA, 2014o). In these areas, reducing the carbon intensity of
electric power generation is expected to provide significant opportunities to simultaneously
reduce water use. Reductions in water use would include efficiency improvements, shifting to
increased use of renewable or zero-carbon-emission alternatives, and shifting to types of
thermoelectric generation that offer both reduced carbon-intensity and reduced water
consumption.
Table 1-7. Water Consumption Normalized by Net Electric Generation for
Thermoelectric Power Plants*
System
Coal
Coal/CO2-capture
Coal/IGCC/CO2-capture
Nature Gas/Rankine
NGCC
Nuclear
Water consumption
gal/MWh
4-1100
815 - 942
522-604
95 - 1170
0-300
100 - 845
Note: * -from U.S. EPA(2014o)
2.4.4. EPA Climate Change Programs andSustainability Initiatives
EPA has established several programs to help advance the science, educate the public,
develop tools and strategies, and implement actions pertaining to climate change mitigation and
adaptation. It its National Water Program 2008 Strategy: Response to Climate Change (U.S.
EPA, 2008b), EPA established five climate-change-related goals for Agency water programs.
EPA updated its strategy in 2012 (U.S. EPA, 2012f) and provides annual updates of its progress
in meeting these goals (U.S. EPA, 2013d; 2014f). Under these programs, the Agency is
undertaking efforts to prevent contamination of drinking water sources, assess risks of
waterborne disease, develop biological indicators, examine the implications of ocean
acidification on water quality criteria, examine criteria for hydrologic conditions, and include
climate-sensitive parameters in national waterbody surveys. The Agency is also considering
climate implications for future effluent guidelines, TMDL analyses, the Coastal Wetlands
Initiative, CWA Section 404 permitting, NPDES permitting, nonpoint source management, and
the proposed stormwater rulemaking. Moreover, the Office of Water is working with stakeholder
partners on initiatives such as assisting water utilities in developing and deploying water-
metering technologies, developing location-specific information about climate change impacts
for different sectors in each watershed and aquifer, monitoring research developments associated
-33-
-------
with the disposal of desalinization waste brines, and many more. These climate change
adaptation program actions have been periodically updated; for example in U.S. EPA (2012f,
2013d; 2014f).
Worthy to note, EPA undertakes the climate change adaptation in a comprehensive
approach from both water and air programs related to the laws and regulations described in
Section 2.4.1-2.43. In addition to the regulatory programs, several initiatives have been
developed to improve the capability of U.S. utilities in achieving effective climate change
adaptation, for which the systems' resilience and sustainability are emphasized. Examples of the
vulnerary programs are briefly described below in each of the three categories:
Climate Change Adaptation
• WaterSense. WaterSense is an EPA-sponsored voluntary partnership among water
utilities, product manufacturers and retailers, consumers, federal, state, and local
governments, and other stakeholders to decrease indoor and outdoor nonagricultural
water use through more efficient products and practices. WaterSense helps consumers
make water-efficient choices and encourages manufacturers to meet rigorous certification
criteria that ensure product efficiency, performance, and quality. To help meet its climate
change goals, EPA plans to continue to develop specifications for water-efficient
products, encourage water efficiency in landscape design, building operations, and codes,
and educate the public on the value of water use efficiency through its WaterSense
program (U.S. EPA, 2014g). By increasing the water use efficiency, the program
contributes our ability to adapt climate-related water availability problems now in many
parts of the contiguous U.S.
• Climate Ready Water Utilities. Climate Ready Water Utilities (CRWU) is an Agency
initiative to help the drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater utilities in advancing
their understanding of climate change science and in developing adaptation options.
Under this program, EPA has developed clear, easy-to-use tools that help translate
complex climate projections into accessible formats so that water utilities can better
prepare their systems for the impacts of climate change. Through the CRWU, EPA also
provides guidance to water and wastewater utilities on preparing for extreme weather
events (U.S. EPA, 2014h), along with several simulation tools for climate risk assessment
in water utilities and for coastal areas under the threat of storm surge and sea level rise.
Examples include the Climate Risk Evaluation and Assessment Tool (GREAT). More
detailed information on the program and tools are available9.
• Climate Ready Estuaries. Estuaries and coastal areas are particularly vulnerable to the
impacts of climate change. The Climate Ready Estuaries (CRE) program, which is jointly
administered by EPA's Office of Water and Office of Air and Radiation, provides
funding or direct technical assistance to estuary programs to assess climate change
vulnerability related to sea level rise, increasing temperatures, and other effects. In
addition, the CRE program works to build capacity to respond to climate change (U.S.
EPA, 2013f).
'Http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/watersecuritv/
-34-
-------
• Promotion of Green Infrastructure. Green infrastructure refers to natural systems or
engineered systems designed to mimic natural processes. Green infrastructure can help
manage stormwater and reduce water quality impacts on receiving waters. These systems
are often soil or vegetation-based and include approaches such as tree preservation,
impervious cover reduction, or structural interventions such as rain gardens and
permeable pavements. Through this strategy, EPA aims to increase national and local
capacity to evaluate the role of green infrastructure and the benefits that green
infrastructure can provide. (U.S. EPA, 2013g).
Climate Change Mitigation
Several voluntary programs at EPA go beyond the water industry to mitigate the effects
of climate change by reducing GHG emissions. EPA's voluntary energy and climate programs
promote partnerships with industry to reduce GHG emissions (U.S. EPA, 20141). Examples of
industry partnerships include:
• Center for Corporate Leadership: A group that provides resources to companies
interested in expanding their work in GHG measurements and management.
• WasteWise: A program to eliminate municipal solid waste and select industrial waste to
reduce deposits in landfills and reduce GHG emissions.
• Clean Energy, Transportation and Air Quality Voluntary Programs: Programs that form
partnerships with businesses, industry, state and local governments, and many other
stakeholders to reduce pollution and improve air quality in the transportation sector. For
example, EPA's Clean Energy Programs promote collaboration with policy makers,
electric and gas utilities, energy customers, and key stakeholders to design and implement
clean energy solutions (U.S. EPA, 2014k). The initiative includes several program areas
to advance clean energy, reduce GHG emissions, and improve energy efficiency
• Clean Automotive Technology. This effort consists of a range of programs that aim to
reduce air pollution and GHG emissions from vehicles and increase fuel efficiency (U.S.
EPA, 20141). EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality leads these programs and
focuses on public-private partnerships to engage the automotive industry and develop
new engine technologies.
Sustainability and R&D programs
EPA has also initiated several programs and collaborative efforts across the Agency to
address sustainability. Many programs specifically address sustainability in areas affected by
regulations described in this report, namely those related to water, air, climate, and energy. These
efforts promote sustainability and address adapting to a changing climate and reducing
vulnerabilities to climate change. Examples of initiatives under the area of sustainable water
include:
• Water Infrastructure: Moving Toward Sustainability. In response to a request in the FY
2010 President's budget, EPA released its Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure
Sustainability Policy (U.S. EPA, 2014J). The goal of this policy is to identify and
promote more sustainable practices in the water industry. The policy identified three
levels at which this goal can be achieved: Sustainable Water Infrastructure, Sustainable
-35-
-------
Water Sector Systems, and Sustainable Communities. The Sustainable Water Sector
Systems level primarily addresses effective utility management, which helps drinking
water, wastewater, and stormwater systems build and sustain technical, managerial, and
financial capacity. Efforts on the Sustainable Communities level expand infrastructure
planning beyond the water sector based on the understanding that community growth
involves multiple infrastructure sectors. This cross-sector approach attempts to align the
long-term goals of sectors such as housing, transportation, and water to promote
sustainable growth.
• Water and Ecosystems Research. EPA spearheads many research efforts under the areas
of water and ecosystems. Areas of research address a broad set of topics such as climate
change, the water and energy nexus, watershed protection, sustainable water
infrastructure, chemical and microbial risks, nutrients, ecosystem services, air quality,
ecological risk assessments, and health.
• Air Research. EPA's air research supports the development of outdoor air regulations
under the CAA (U.S. EPA, 2014m). EPA addresses linkages between air quality and
several research areas such as energy, health, ecosystems, and climate change. Climate
change research focuses on identifying health impacts of climate change and providing
solutions to mitigate and adapt to these impacts (U.S. EPA, 2014n). Research areas in
climate change address threats to ecosystems, impacts on public health, and improving
scientific tools to develop adaptation and mitigation strategies.
Through this wide array of policies, programs, and research initiatives, EPA is
identifying potential impacts of climate change on the water sector in the U.S. and mitigation
strategies. Research organized in the EPA Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) research program is
focused specifically on climate change as it relates to water infrastructure sustainability. As
detailed above, these activities also include climate change mitigation efforts to reduce the
effects of climate change, and they develop and implement adaptation strategies to lessen the
nation's vulnerability to climate change.
3. Utility Assessment of Future Trends and Needs
Several recent research efforts have focused on identifying trends and needs within the
water industry by means of surveys. In some cases, these surveys asked utilities and other
stakeholders to rank climate-related needs against other issues faced by the industry, such as
financing and water availability. The results of these surveys provide insight into how the water
industry views climate change and what priority it assigns to climate adaptation among other
pressing concerns. The results suggest (without explicitly indicating) the degree to which
drinking water utilities would be willing or inclined to consider climate change when planning
infrastructure updates. This section provides a summary of six research efforts, each of which is
described briefly below and in more detail in the subsections that follow.
Although results of the first two surveys listed below are nearly 10 years old, they are
included in the report to provide additional context for how utilities and stakeholders have
prioritized climate change over the past decade. It is important to note that the availability of
information about climate change and its impacts on utilities has changed considerably over the
past decade. Also, disruptive events (e.g., terrorism, extreme weather) and other factors such as
-36-
-------
economic outlook can have a significant influence on the trends and needs that utilities identify
as important at any given moment. These considerations suggest the value of taking a long view,
and should be kept in mind when reviewing and analyzing the results of any survey.
• U.S. Conference of Mayors National City Water Surveys. Conducted in 2005, this survey
collected information about four key water resource areas from 414 cities. Survey results
include a ranking of issues of current or future concerns.
• AWWARF Assessment of Trends and their Implications for Water Utilities. This effort
polled attendees at a Futures Workshop in 2004 to examine significant trends affecting
water utilities. Results consist of a ranked list of the top ten trends in the industry.
• University of Cincinnati Region Poll of Five Cities Plus Conference. Researchers at the
University of Cincinnati conducted a poll of wastewater representatives at the Five Cities
Plus Conference in 2008. The results from six participants, previously unpublished,
provided a rank order of 20 issues facing Midwest wastewater utilities.
• University of Cincinnati National On-line Questionnaire. This national on-line survey
was an effort conducted by the University of Cincinnati researchers concurrent with the
Five Cities Plus poll in 2008. The on-line survey collected information on a broader set of
questions about the current state and future trends of water and wastewater utilities.
• AWWA State of the Water Industry. AWWA's 2014 State of the Water Industry report
summarized the results of a survey that included 1,739 respondents in the U.S. and
abroad. The results rank 30 issues facing the water industry, and a comparison of how the
rank of these issues has changed since AWWA's 2013 report. The report also provides
information on how well prepared respondents believe the water industry is to address
climate change.
• Water Research Foundation (WRF) Forecasting the Future. This 2012 report
summarizes the results of a survey in which 17 utilities in North America and abroad
ranked the trends to identify their top five trend areas for the water sector. Researchers
refined the survey results through a workshop and provided a final list of the top 10 key
trends in the water industry.
• The 2014 seventh study, titled Effective Climate Change Communication to Water Utility
Stakeholders, is based on a survey from the perspective of water utility customers. A
survey of a statistical sample of 1,021 water utility customers nationwide highlights
customers' expectations of their water utilities in preparing for climate change. The
results are summarized in Section 3.7.
Collectively, these surveys and studies conclude that the water utilities are aware of the
potential impacts of climate change to the water infrastructure and water programs; some are
taking actions in the impact assessment and adaptation planning. However, the water utilities are
facing multiple pressing needs other than climate change impacts. A lack of actionable science
and engineering design basis, which are important to conventional water engineering and
financing practice, further ferments the reluctance toward taking immediate climate adaptation
actions. As a result, climate change adaptation actions are often imbedded in other capital
improvement programs, rather than listed as an independent priority factor. Details of the results
-37-
-------
are presented in Section 4.0 and are analyzed in the context of the water regulatory programs and
water infrastructure conditions for climate change adaptation.
3.1. U.S. Conference of Mayors National City Water Surveys
Most water and wastewater infrastructure in the U.S. is managed at the local level by
cities and municipalities. In 2005 the United States Conference of Mayors Urban Water Council
(UWC) task force conducted a survey to examine water resources priorities and trends in the
U.S. (Anderson et al., 2005). Its purpose was to elicit information about issues affecting cities'
provision and protection of community water and wastewater services. The task force focused on
issues including development and rehabilitation of surface and subsurface water infrastructure,
water infrastructure financing, watershed management, water supply planning, water
conservation, wetlands construction and education programs, water system program management
and asset management.
Current information was requested from respondents in the following four key water
resources areas: issues and priorities, recent and planned major capital investments in water and
wastewater infrastructure, adequacy of water supplies, and water conservation activities. The
survey was distributed to nearly 1,200 cities with mayoral forms of government (with
populations of 30,000 or greater). Nearly 35 percent (414 cities) responded to the survey. Mayors
were asked to designate issues of current or future concern from a list of 24 possible water
resources issues. Results are presented in Table 1-8.
The report also summarized the planned infrastructure investments by city size. As
illustrated in Table 1-9, the percentage of municipalities planning infrastructure investments in
the near future increases with city size. Other significant results of the 2005 survey are
summarized below.
• Water supply adequacy: A critical water shortage could occur by 2025 in cities
nationwide. Thirty-five percent of the surveyed cities indicated that they have an
adequate water supply for less than 20 years; 56 percent indicated that they have an
adequate water supply for more than 20 years.
• Water conservation: Two-thirds of the surveyed cities indicated they had water
conservation plans in place. A higher proportion of large cities (80 percent) had
conservation plans in place that smaller cities (59 percent).
• Public-private partnerships: Fifty-three percent of the surveyed cities indicated that they
were willing to consider a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) approach to water
infrastructure projects if cost savings in operation and maintenance or construction could
be achieved.
In a 2007 follow-up study, the U.S. Conference of Mayors conducted a national survey of
Drinking Water and Wastewater Asset Management (Anderson, 2007). Objectives of this survey
included an examination of the extent to which asset management programs have been integrated
into water and wastewater programs as well as the generation of information on the challenges
cities face in managing these assets.
The 2007 report found that repair and replacement cycles for assets were mainly
determined by budget allocations. City managers were asked to report how many years it takes to
-38-
-------
complete a repair and replacement (rehabilitation) cycle for the water system pipes that they
operate and maintain at current or projected spending levels. According to the survey, the mean
rehabilitation period is 90.6 years and the median rehabilitation period is 50 years. Estimated
annual spending on drinking water distribution system pipes ranged from $1,500 to $15 million
in the 235 participating cities, with a mean of $1.4 million per year and a median of $400,000 per
year.
Table 1-8. Ranked Order of 24 Water Resources Issues*
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Water Resources Issue
Aging water resources infrastructure
Security/protection of water resources infrastructure
Water supply availability
Permits, regulatory issues
Water quality of urban streams and rivers
Flooding
Emergency planning and management for storms, hurricanes
Drought management
Regional conflict over water use
Water rights
Groundwater depletion
Sediment management
Inter-basin transfer
Best practices - technology transfer
Endangered species
Loss of river corridors / green-space
Loss of wetlands
Other
Water transportation (channels, ports, dredging)
Beach / shoreline erosion
Neglected / decaying waterfront areas
Channel / harbor adequacy
Insufficient water-oriented recreation
Waterborne traffic
Percent of Cities
60.6
54.6
46.4
45.2
42.3
38.4
34.3
32.6
26.8
25.1
23.4
19.6
16.2
13.0
11.6
10.6
10.4
9.7
8.5
7.5
6.8
4.8
3.9
3.4
Note: * - from Anderson et al. (2005)
The mean reported number of years for sewer pipe repair and rehabilitation was 78; the
median was approximately 40 years. Average annual expenditure on wastewater collection pipe
-39-
-------
repair/replacement in participating cities was $1.7 million, though ten cities reported spending
$10 million or more.
Table 1-9. Percentage of 414 Cities Planning Infrastructure Investments in 2005-2009"
Infrastructure Category
Water supply
Water treatment plants
Water distribution system
Wastewater treatment plants
Wastewater collection system
Small Cities1 (%)
44.7
38.8
68.2
41.2
58.2
Medium Cities2 (%)
52.1
40.7
72.1
46.4
64.3
Large Cities3 (%)
71.1
61.5
79.8
62.5
72.1
Note: * - from Anderson et al. (2005)
1 Small cities - fewer than 50,000 people.
2 Medium cities - between 50,000 and 100,000 people.
3 Large cities - more than 100,000 people.
3.2. AWWARF Assessment of Trends and their Implications for Water Utilities
AWWARF conducted a Futures Workshop in 2004, following up on earlier efforts in
2000, to examine significant trends affecting water utilities. The starting point for the assessment
was the identification of major utility trends by prominent leaders in the water community (Table
1-10).
This exercise led to the development of a trend paper serving as a briefing for a
subsequent expert futures workshop (McGuire Environmental Consultants and R. Patrick, 2005;
Means et al., 2005b). The objective of the workshop was to develop a consensus around the top
ten primary trends and to formulate strategies for dealing with each trend. The resulting list of
top ten trends is summarized below:
• Population and demographic changes
• Political environment complexity
• Increasing regulations
• Workforce issues
• Technology improvements
• Total water management
• Changing customer expectations
• Utility finance constraints
• Energy cost and supply reliability
• Increased risk profile
-40-
-------
Results from the 2000 and 2004 workshops were compared to identify changes in trends
over the four-year period. Though many of the year 2000 trends continued in 2004, a notable
addition was the emergence of a utility risk profile, largely attributed to the events of September
11, 2001. Other continuing/emerging trends included total water management, regulations and
infrastructure management. Climate change, though discussed as part of the total water
management topic, was not recognized in 2004 as one of the top ten trends. These results suggest
that utilities may benefit from revisiting long-range plans, if they have not done so already, to
ensure that they address current needs related to climate change. In particular, improvements
were found necessary to ensure infrastructure sustainability in the context of climate change.
Table 1-10. Utility Trends Identified in Expert Interviews*
Societal
Business
Utility
• Population / demographics
• Environmental trends
• Economic trends
• Medicine/health trends
• Terrorism/wars
(post Sept 11 environment)
Employment trends
Customer expectations
Outsourcing / globalization
Technology (IT & others)
Public confidence in
markets
Regulatory trends
Political environment
Rate sensitivity
Infrastructure aging
Privatization
Physical and IT security
Workforce demographics
Total water management
Water resources / drought
Treatment technology
Regionalization
Reuse
Note: * - from Means et al. (2005b)
3.3. University of Cincinnati Regional Poll of Five Cities Plus Conference Participants
3.3.1. Assessment Methods
The Five Cities Plus Conference convenes each year at a rotating location in the Midwest
and provides a forum for regional wastewater utilities to meet and discuss common operational
concerns. One session typically includes a meeting of utility directors, chief engineers and other
high level staff. Working with conference organizers, researchers from the University of
Cincinnati distributed the ranking matrix shown in Figure 1-12 to senior representatives from six
major Midwestern wastewater utilities. The locations of the six utilities are indicated by the
yellow dots on the map in Figure 1-13.
-41 -
-------
UNIVERSITY OF ^^jL-
Cincinnati
Water Resources Adaptation Program - Infrastructure
Two Minute Survey on
Future Operation and Performance of Wastewater Utilities
Instructions: Listed alphabetically below are 21 problem areas which may adversely affect
the operation of your wastewater utility over the next 50 years. Put a "v"' in the appropriate
box to score each problem on a scale of 5 (very serious; high impact) to 1 (not serious; no
impact) according to its anticipated impact on operation of your wastewater utility. Please
return with stamped self-addressed envelope. Thank you.
Specific Issue or Problem Affecting Your
Utility Operation Over Next 50 Years
[01] Aging water system infrastructure
[02] Climate change
[03] CSOs and/or SSOs
[04] Decline in local revenue stream
[05] Decline in state or federal aid
[06] Emergency plans for
storms/hurricanes
[07] Endangered species
[08] Inadequate treatment capacity
[09] Increased cost of energy
[10] Infiltration and Inflow (I/I)
[11] Lack of skilled work force
[12] Lack of asset management plan
[13] Prospect of privatization
[14] Nutrients and pharmaceuticals
[15] Outdated treatment
technology/equipment
[16] Reduced flow in receiving water body
[17] Regional conflicts over water use
Very
Serious
[5]
[4]
Somewhat
Serious
[3]
[2]
Not
Seriou
[1]
-42-
-------
[18] Stringent government regulations
[19] Vulnerability to cyber attacks
[20] Vulnerability to physical attacks
[21] Other
Figure 1-12. Ranking matrix distributed to wastewater utility directors attending the Five Cities
Plus Conference held in Columbus Ohio, June 2008.
27 anonymous
DW, WW utilities
yellow = wastewater participants in the Five Cities Plus Conference survey
red = wastewater participants in the National Water Infrastructure Questionnaire
blue = drinking water participants in the National Water Infrastructure Questionnaire
Figure 1-13. Participants in the Five Cities Plus Conference Survey and the National Water
Infrastructure Questionnaire.
-43-
-------
3.3.2. Findings
Results of the poll (previously unpublished) are given in Appendix I-A and summarized
here. The data were normalized for consistency10 with Table 1-8, and the ranked results are
presented in Table 1-11. Three of the top five concerns in Table 1-11 are linked to finances
(decline in state or federal aid, decline in local revenue streams, and increasing cost of energy).
Aging infrastructure and CSOs/SSOs share second place in matrix ranking. Both issues
(understanding CSOs and SSOs as key contributors to water quality problems in urban rivers and
streams) also appear among the top five categories cited in Table 1-8.
Table 1-11. Ranked Order of 20 Issues Facing Midwest Wastewater Utilities (N=6)
Rank
1
2.5
2.5
4.5
4.5
6
7.5
7.5
9
10
11
12
13.5
13.5
15
16
17
18
19.5
19.5
Wastewater Utility Issue
Decline in state or federal aid
Aging water system infrastructure
Combined sewer overflows; sanitary sewer overflows (CSO/SSO)
Decline in local revenue stream
Increasing cost of energy
Nutrients and Pharmaceuticals
Infiltration and Inflow (I/I)
Lack of skilled work force
Stringent government regulations
Lack of asset management plan
Outdated technology/equipment
Climate change
Emergency plans for storms/hurricane
Inadequate treatment capacity
Vulnerability to physical attacks
Vulnerability to cyber attacks
Reduced flow in receiving water body
Endangered species
Prospect of privatization
Regional conflicts over water use
Score [0-100]
91.7
87.5
87.5
83.3
83.3
75.0
70.8
70.8
66.7
54.2
50.0
45.8
41.7
41.7
37.5
33.3
29.2
20.8
8.3
8.3
10 The matrix scoring system allowed a minimum value of "6" if an issue received six "Is", and
a maximum value of "30" if an issue received six "5s". Actual scores (Appendix I-A) range 8-28.
The scores were transformed to the scale in Table 1-11, with Y = 4.167(X-6); X is original score
and Y is the transformed score.
-44-
-------
3.4. University of Cincinnati National On-line Questionnaire
3.4.1. Methods
The University of Cincinnati research team developed a second, more comprehensive and
extensive data gathering instrument to reach a broader cross section of the nation's water
industry. The research team partnered with three national drinking water and wastewater industry
organizations to collect information on utility perceptions of key issues that they will likely face
in the future. The original questionnaire is given in Appendices I-C and I-D. In each case, the
research team worked closely with the organizations to develop a vehicle to collect
representative and meaningful information from member utilities. The participating water
organizations included the following:
• Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) - AMWA is an organization
comprised of the largest publicly owned drinking water systems in the U.S. AMWA's
membership serves more than 130 million Americans with drinking water from Alaska to
Puerto Rico, http://www.amwa.net/
• National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) - NACWA represents the
interests of the country's wastewater treatment agencies that serve the majority of the
sewered population in the U.S., and collectively treat and reclaim over 18 billion gallons
of wastewater daily, http://www.nacwa.org/
• National Association of Water Companies (NAWC) - NAWC represents all aspects of the
private water service industry. Member business includes ownership of regulated
drinking water and wastewater utilities, many forms of public-private partnerships and
management contract arrangements. NAWC's membership ranges in size from large
companies owning and/or operating many hundreds of utilities in multiple states to
individual utilities with only a few hundred customers, http://www.nawc.org/index.html
Table 1-12. Main Sections of the On-line Water Utility Questionnaire
Section
Number
1
2
3
4
5/6
7/8
Total
Number of Questions
Drinking Water
0
11
22
5
6
3
47
Wastewater
0
9
18
5
5
3
40
Questionnaire Topic
[Introduction]
Utility Profile
Infrastructure and Operation
Agents of Change
Thinking Ahead / Master Plan
Contact Information (optional)
The questionnaire developed during spring 2008. The researchers posted two versions of
the on-line questionnaire: one for the drinking water industry with 47 questions and the other for
the wastewater industry with 40 questions. Both were designed to be completed at one sitting in
an hour or less. The main topics covered in the questionnaire are summarized in Table 1-12.
-45-
-------
Copies of the on-line questionnaires for the drinking water industry and wastewater industry are
presented in Appendices 1-C and 1-D, respectively.
3.4.2. Findings
Representatives from a total of 55 water utilities responded to the on-line questionnaire.
These 55 utilities, representing nearly 43 million customers, declared infrastructure assets that
included 110 water treatment plants, over 640 storage tanks, more than 1,320 pumping stations
and nearly 85,000 miles of pipeline. A profile of participating utilities is given in Table 1-13.
The geographic distribution of the participating water utilities is shown by the red and blue dots
in Figure 1-13.
Table 1-13. Participant Profile of Water Utilities Completing On-line Questionnaire
Feature
Number of Utilities
2008 Customers (million)
2008 Summer Flow (MGD)
2008 Water Use (GPCD*)
20-yr Projected Growth*
Miles of Pipeline
Pumping Stations
Storage Tanks
Treatment Plants
Drinking Water
32
16.83
2,686
160
19.1%
58,500
589
643
62
Wastewater
23
25.91
3,450
133
13.5%
26,200
735
0
48
Total
55
42.74
6,136
293
15.7%
84,700
1,324
643
110
* GPCD is gallons per capita per day
** Growth rates are the weighted averages based on population.
The questionnaire-based assessment was designed to protect the anonymity of the
participants to encourage participation and candid responses. Utility respondents were neither
required nor encouraged to reveal their identity. However, utility participants did have an option
to provide contact information. Participating utilities that elected to share their identity are
identified on the map in Figure 1-13. While the identity of nearly half of the participants (27 of
55) was unknown, the on-line questionnaire instrument recorded the internet protocol (IP)
addresses of all utility participants for quality assurance purposes and to ensure that a water
utility contributed at most only one set of responses for the on-line questionnaire.
The key results of the on-line water resources infrastructure questionnaire are presented
in the following sections. The results of the on-line data collection exercise for the drinking
water and the wastewater industries are presented in parallel where possible. This approach was
taken because the questionnaires for both groups were similar in structure and, it turns out, the
responses revealed a remarkable consistency between the two water sectors. This strategy
provides a convenient effective way to contrast, compare and comprehend responses from both
groups.
For clarity of exposition, the color blue and designation "DW" signifies results from the
drinking water responses (AMWA and NACW members) while the color red and designation
"WW" is used to represent results from the wastewater responses (NAWCA and NACW
-46-
-------
members). While many respondents answered most questions, the completion rate varied from
question to question across the assessment. Therefore, whenever possible and where appropriate,
the sample size is included in summary tables and graphs.
3.4.2.1. Utility profiles
System Size
As shown in Table 1-14, respondents represented abroad collection of service conditions
with customer bases ranging from 35,000 to 3 million people in the drinking water group and
from 35,000 to 10 million people in the wastewater group. Interestingly, the mean population
served among wastewater respondents was more than twice the mean population served among
drinking water respondents; however, the medians for both groups were reasonably close. This
underscores the large influence of a few high outliers, particularly in the wastewater group. The
distribution of utility sizes in 2008 in terms of service area size and number of employees is
shown graphically in Figures 1-14 and 1-15. In the case of service area size, almost all of the
drinking water and wastewater responses were in the range of 10 to 1,000 square miles. For
number of employees, nearly 60 percent of the responses in both groups were in the range of 100
to 499 employees. There was a statistically significant relationship between connections and
population served (Figure 1-16) and between flow and population served (Figure 1-17). A
multiplicative power function describes this relationship with a high degree of correlation, as
indicated in Table 1-15.
• DW Utilities (N=31)
• WW Utilities (N=23)
> 10,000 sq mi
1,000 to 10,000 sq mi
100 to 1,000 sq mi
10 to 100 sq mi
< 10 sq mi
20 40 60 80
Percentage of Water Utilities
100
Figure 1-14. Size of service area for 54 drinking water and wastewater utilities.
-47-
-------
Table 1-14. Statistics for Service Connections and Population Served at 55 Water Utilities
Feature
Mean
Median
Stan Dev
Min
Max
Total
Drinking Water Utilities (N=32)
Service Connections
Population Served
139,525
525,829
95,000
352,500
174,327
592,605
8,500
35,000
950,000
3,000,000
4,464,800
16,826,528
Wastewater Utilities (N=23)
Service Connections
Population Served
255,286
1,126,626
81,000
275,000
626,941
2,215,230
8,500
35,000
3,000,000
10,350,000
5,616,292
25,912,388
> 1000 Employees
500 to 999 Employees
100 to 499 Employees
10 to 99 Employees
< 10 Employees
DW Utilities (N=32)
WW Utilities (N=23)
20 40 60 80
Percentage of Water Utilities
100
Figure 1-15. Number of employees at 55 drinking water and wastewater utilities.
Wholesale Water
Approximately 75 percent of the utilities sell a relatively small amount of their water
(<20 percent) wholesale (i.e., to another utility, rather than to end users). The amount of
wholesale water sold is expected to increase slightly by 2028.
Water Source
As shown in Figure 1-18, surface water is the primary source for 80 percent of the
drinking water utility respondents. Surface water provided just over 77 percent of the total water
volume produced by the 32 drinking water utilities. By 2028, over 90 percent of the respondents
expect that surface water will be their primary source of drinking water.
-48-
-------
1000
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Population (x 1,000)
Figure 1-16. Service connections versus population at 55 water utilities
(DW=blue; WW=red).
Q
O
10000
1000
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Population (in 1000s)
Figure 1-17. Flows versus population at 55 water utilities (DW=blue; WW=red).
Table 1-15. Relationship between Connections, Flows, and Population, Y=aXb
Independent
Variable, X
Population in 1000s
Population in 1000s
Population in 1000s
Population in 1000s
Dependent
Variable, Y
DW Service
Connections
WW Service
Connections
DW Flow (MGD)
WW Flow (MGD)
Coefficient
(a)
340.4
540.2
0.123
0.185
Exponent
(b)
0.956
0.878
1.05
0.95
Correlation
(R)
0.974
0.936
0.944
0.972
Figure
4.5
4.5
4.6
4.6
-49-
-------
Drinking Water Utilities Drinking Water Volume by Source
20.0%-
—~7~7 *PP/
] Surface Water ^^^^^^P • Surface Water ^ ^
D Groundwater 1=1 Groundwater
utilities.
Projected Change in Population Served
An overwhelming majority of responding water utilities expect their customer base to
increase in the next 20 years (Figure 1-19). Based on 55 responses, the overall industry-wide
average rate of growth for the next 20 years was estimated to be about 16 percent (or 0.80
percent per annum). At the extremes, on the high side, one drinking water utility (in the southern
U.S.) expected a growth rate over 50 percent, while on the low side, one wastewater utility (in
the northern U.S.) expected a negative growth rate.
Current and Projected Water Use
Respondents provided information on current (2008) and projected (2028) flows. Flow
information included both summer and winter estimates for average and maximum daily flows.
The estimates are summarized in Table 1-16. On average, the daily flows during the summer and
winter seasons are projected to increase by 25 to 40 percent in the next 20 years. These rates of
increase in system-wide flows exceed the anticipated average growth in customer base
mentioned in the previous section.
Climatic Information
Average annual temperature and precipitation information for the water utilities is
summarized in Figure 1-20 and Figure 1-21, respectively. As evident on the map in Figure 1-13,
the participating water utilities represent a wide range of geographic and climatic conditions,
from cold (< 40 °F) to warm (> 70 °F) climates and from dry (< 10 inches per year of
precipitation) to wet (> 55 inches per year of precipitation) regions.
-50-
-------
> 100%
50 to 100%
DW Utilities (N=32)
WW Utilities (N=23)
20 40 60 80
Percentage of Water Utilities
100
Figure 1-19. Distribution of projected growth in utility customer base over next 20 years.
Table 1-16. Estimated Flows by Water Utility Respondents
Water Use
Statistic
Average Daily Usage (MGD)
Summer
2008 2028
Winter
2008 2028
Maximum Daily Usage (MGD)
Summer
2008 2028
Winter
2008 2028
Drinking Water Utilities
Sample Size
Minimum
Average
Maximum
30 23
3.2 4
90 113
250 300
29 22
2.8 13
58 82
200 250
29 21
4.2 26
110 154
300 384
26 20
3.6 22
69 46
210 260
Wastewater Utilities
Sample Size
Minimum
Average
Maximum
23 16
4.9 9
150 195
1463 1609
23 15
4.5 9
155 196
1367 1504
22 16
7 28
244 311
2226 2449
23 16
9 11
249 304
2410 2651
-51 -
-------
DW Utilities (N=26)
WW Utilities (N=23)
60 to 70 F
> 70 F
50
10 20 30 40
Percentage of Water Utilities
Figure 1-20. Distribution of annual average temperature at 49 water utilities
• DW Utilities (N=31)
I I WW Utilities (N=23)
< 10 in
i u to /io in
/io to 4U in
4U to oo in
> 55 in
^
Fm m
PI
•
r
•
i
•
i
i
0
50
10 20 30 40
Percentage of Water Utilities
Figure 1-21. Distribution of annual average precipitation at 54 water utilities.
-52-
-------
3.4.2.2. Infrastructure and operation
Water Treatment
Water treatment process information from the on-line survey is summarized in Tables 1-
17 and 1-18 for the drinking water and wastewater groups, respectively. Most (about 75 percent)
of the drinking water respondents operate one or two treatment plants, with the remaining 25
percent of the systems reporting a larger number of plants. Four main processes (rapid mix,
flocculation, settling basins, and filtration) were used at the majority (over two-thirds) of
drinking water treatment plants, though not necessarily in tandem with each other. The full suite
of these four unit processes appeared in just over half (52 percent) of the 25 drinking water
treatment plants that provided a complete response to this question. Eight other drinking water
processes were used in less than half of the water treatment plants, as indicated in Table 1-17.
Neither diatomaceous earth filtration nor bank filtration were used by any of the drinking water
respondents.
Most (75 percent) of the wastewater respondents indicated that they operate one or two
wastewater treatment facilities; a smaller fraction (15 percent) indicated they operate three to
five wastewater treatment facilities. The remaining 10 percent of wastewater respondents were
evenly distributed between operating six to ten and greater than ten wastewater treatment
facilities. Five main treatment processes—screening, sedimentation, activated sludge, anaerobic
digestion, and disinfection—are used at the majority (nearly 70 percent) of the wastewater plants
examined. The complete collection of these five unit processes appears together in only about 39
percent of the wastewater treatment plants in this assessment. Filtration is used by about half the
treatment plants. As listed in Table 1-18, ten other processes were used by less than half of the
responding wastewater treatment facilities. Rotating biological contactors (RBC) were not used
by any of the wastewater respondents.
Table 1-17. Drinking Water Treatment Plant Processes (N = 25 responses)
Water Treatment Processes
Pre-sedimentation basin
Rapid mix
Flocculation
Settling basin
Filtration
Granular activated carbon (GAC)
Microfiltration / Ultrafiltration (MF/UF)
Nanofiltration
Slow sand filtration
Diatomaceous earth filtration
Bank filtration
UV disinfection
Ozone chamber
Contact tank
Percent of DW Utilities
32.0
68.0
84.0
72.0
84.0
32.0
12.0
8.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
40.0
32.0
-53-
-------
Table 1-18. Wastewater Treatment Plant Processes (N = 23 responses)
Water Treatment Processes
Screening
Sedimentation
Flotation
Filtration
Gas stripping
Chemical precipitation
Adsorption
Activated sludge
Aerated lagoons
Trickling filter
Rotating biological contactors (RBC)
Anaerobic digesters
Nutrient removal
Stabilization ponds
Disinfection
Ozone chamber
UV light
Percent of WW Utilities
78.2
78.2
30.4
52.2
8.7
21.7
13.0
87.0
17.4
26.0
0.0
69.6
34.8
13.0
82.6
4.3
26.0
Treatment Plant Capacity
Some statistics for treatment plant capacity are summarized in Table 1-19 based on two
metrics: [i] absolute plant capacity expressed in million gallons per day (MGD) and [ii] plant
capacity per population served expressed as gallons per capita per day (GPCD). The sample
skewness for the wastewater data sets is relatively high (2.91 for MGD and 3.70 for GPCD),
indicating the presence of one or more extreme values which can influence estimates of other
sample statistics. In contrast, the skewness for both drinking water data sets is relatively mild and
decreases from 1.41 (MGD) to -0.03 (GPCD) when the plant capacity is expressed on a per
capita basis.
This behavior is evident in Figure 1-22, which shows the cumulative distribution on
normal probability of plant capacity (GPCD) for drinking water and wastewater operations. The
drinking water data set follows a linear trend on the graph, suggesting that these values are
normally distributed. The pronounced upward curvature in the wastewater data indicates that
these values are not normally distributed and confirms the presence of a strong positive
skewness. The high outlier in the wastewater group (1,333 GPCD) is from a participant who
provided contact information. In a follow-up discussion, the participants confirmed that the data
provided in the original responses are correct. It should also be mentioned that the minimum
point in the drinking water group (23 GPCD) corresponds to a utility whose source is a protected
groundwater supply requiring little treatment.
-54-
-------
Table 1-19. Treatment Plant Capacity of 51 Water Utilities
Statistic
Sample Size
Minimum
Average
Median
Maximum
Standard Deviation
Skewness
Drinking Water Utilities
(MGD)
30
5.3
138
90
510
123
1.41
(GPCD)
30
23
308
305
560
142
-0.03
Wastewater Utilities
(MGD)
21
8.0
301
54
2,506
631
2.91
(GPCD)
21
94
260
192
1,333
265
3.70
While the connections and flows per population are similar between the drinking water
and wastewater groups (see Figures 1-16 and 1-17), their volumetric treatment capacities per
capita are quite different. The difference is also revealed in Figure 1-22. Based on the sample
obtained in this questionnaire, the plant treatment capacity expressed as GPCD is significantly
less for wastewater operations than for drinking water operations. It is not known if this is a
general rule of the industry or simply an artifact of the sample.
1500
5 20 50 80 95
Cumulative Percentage
99 99.9
Figure 1-22. Distribution of treatment plant capacity expressed as GPCD. (DW=blue;
WW=red).
According to Harr (1987), one measure of system reliability is the factor of safety,
defined as the dimensionless ratio of system capacity C to system demand D, or
C
FS = -
D
-55-
-------
Conventional engineering practice requires that FS>1. If the nominal plant treatment
capacity is interpreted as the "system capacity" and the peak flows (mentioned in Table 1-19) are
viewed as the "system demand", then data collected from the questionnaire can be used to
develop a probability distribution of safety factors for drinking water and wastewater treatment
operations. Results for current (2008) and future (2028) conditions appear in Figure 1-23 and
Figure 1-24, respectively.
Figure 1-23 indicates that during peak summer demand in 2008 approximately 80 percent
of drinking water respondents and 55 percent of wastewater utility respondents could operate
with FS>1. This implies that the volumetric capacity of the water treatment plant is sufficient to
satisfy demand (or loading) during periods of peak use.
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Cumulative Percentage
Figure 1-23. Factor of safety for drinking water and wastewater operations based on
summer 2008 peak flows. (DW=blue; WW=red).
Furthermore, Figure 1-24 suggests that during peak summer demand in 2028 about 65
percent of drinking water utilities and 30 percent of wastewater utilities will operate with FS>1.
This exercise clearly demonstrates that the treatment performance of water utilities will diminish
with increasing future demands. Consistent with the trend noted in Figure 1-22, the wastewater
industry seems to have a smaller operating buffer than the drinking water industry, and
consequently will be challenged more often and more severely in the future to provide adequate
treatment under increased peak loading periods. The expected reduction in performance is due
strictly to future increases in peak demand as forecast by the utility respondents. No attempt has
been made here to account for likely plant expansions needed to accommodate increasing
demand.
-56-
-------
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Cumulative Percentage
Figure 1-24. Factor of safety for drinking water and wastewater operations based on
summer 2028 peak flows. (DW=blue; WW=red).
Pumping Stations, Tanks, and Pipes
Statistics on the number of water treatment plants, pumping stations and tanks, total tank
capacity and miles of pipes for drinking water respondents are presented in Table 1-20. Based on
this table it is apparent that the sample of drinking water utility respondents encompassed a wide
range of distribution system characteristics.
Figure 1-25 summarizes the relative frequency of pipe material based on responses from
39 utilities. Cast iron and ductile iron are the most prevalent pipe materials in the drinking water
industry, while concrete and other pipe materials tend to be more common in the wastewater
industry. In conversations with local utilities, other categories of assorted pipe materials were
described, including vitrified clay, brick or stone culvert, wood, and lined pipes (concrete or iron
pipes lined with plastic or resins). For example, the 14-foot sewer at the bottom of Queen City
Avenue in Cincinnati is made of brick and was constructed in place (personal communication,
M. Flanders, Metropolitan Sewer District).
The pipe age is an indicator of system's integrity. Figure 1-26 provides information on
the percentage of pipes that are older than 50 years. The distribution of pipe ages is quite similar
for both utility groups, perhaps reflecting the prevailing practice of installing water and sewer
lines during the same construction period. From the graph, it can be deduced that about one-third
of the drinking water and the wastewater respondents have a pipe network in which over half of
the total length of pipe exceeds 50 years in age. This finding further highlights the advancing age
of the nation's water infrastructure.
In term of annual pipe breakage, Figure 1-27 shows a statistics of utility responses. The
reported breakage rate varies dramatically between the drinking water and wastewater industries;
wastewater utilities tending to have a much lower rate of pipe breakage. This may reflect the fact
that most wastewater collection systems do not operate under pressure whereas drinking water
distribution systems operate continuously under high pressures.
-57-
-------
Table 1-20. Number and Size of Facilities in Drinking Water Supply Systems
Sample Size
Minimum
Average
Maximum
Total
No of Water
Treatment
Plants
30
1
2
>5
>62
No of Pumping
Stations
29
1
20
150
589
No of Finished
Water Tanks
29
3
22
100
643
Total Tank
Capacity (MG)
27
5
90
300
2,428
Distribution
System Pipes
(miles)
29
161
2,018
10,000
58,521
Asbestos
Cast Iron
Ductile Iron
Concrete
Steel
PVC
HOPE
Other
h
DW Utilities (N=22)
WW Utilities (N=17)
10 20 30 40
Relative Frequency of Pipe Material (%)
50
Figure 1-25. Pipe material used in drinking water distribution networks
and wastewater collection systems.
Furthermore, Figure 1-28 presents information on the percentage of pipe that is replaced
annually. Most respondents reported a low pipe replacement rate; over a half indicated that they
replace less than 0.5 percent of their piping each year. At this rate, it would take these utilities
more than 200 years to replace all existing pipes in their infrastructure.
-58-
-------
DW Utilities (N=27)
WW Utilities (N=21)
0%to 15%
15% to 30%
30% to 45%
45% to 60%
> 60%
10 20 30 40
Percentage of Water Utilties
50
Figure 1-26. Percentage of pipes older than 50 years.
Respondents were asked to rate the condition of various components of the water
infrastructure using a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being the worst and 10 the best. This response was
scaled up to a 100-point score system. As shown in Figure 1-29, except for the pipe network
category, the overall average self-assessment results for drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure (pumps, tanks, plants) were in the moderate range (75 to 85). Pipe networks were
rated slightly lower.
DW Utilities (N=27)
WW Utilities (N=20)
0.10% to 0.25%
0.25% to 0.50%
0.50% to 1.00%
> 1.00%
r
20 40 60 80
Percentage of Water Utilities
100
Figure 1-27. Annual breakage rates per mile of pipe.
-59-
-------
DW Utilities (N=28)
WW Utilities (N=21)
< 0.50%
0.5% to 1.0%
1.0% to 1.5%
1.5% to 2.0%
> 2.0%
L
0 20 40 60 80
Percentage of Water Utilties
Figure 1-28. Percentage of pipes replaced annually.
100
Pipe Network
Pump Stations
Storage Tanks
Treatment Plants
DW Utilities (N = 28)
WW Utilities (N = 22)
20
80
100
40 60
Average Score
Figure 1-29. Self-assessment of infrastructure performance and condition by 50 utilities.
While the piping network is the portion of the national water infrastructure that is least in
the public eye, it often represents the single largest capital investment for most water utilities.
Hence, the relatively low scores consistently assigned to the condition of the pipe network
signify a significant impending capital cost at many water utilities.
-60-
-------
Figure 1-30 indicates the distribution of responses regarding the percentage of
wastewater infrastructure (pumps, pipes, plants, etc.) inspected annually. Just over one-third
(36.4 percent) of the responses indicated that 5-10 percent of the infrastructure is inspected each
year. The overall industry-wide average suggested by these results is an inspection rate that
covers about 20 percent of the wastewater system per year. This implies the entire collection of
infrastructure assets for the wastewater sector is inspected on average about once every 5 years
(assuming that no piece of infrastructure is inspected twice before each has been inspected
once—if that assumption is relaxed, the complete inspection cycle at the average wastewater
system may take somewhat longer). Given the enormous variability among systems in annual
inspection rates, some system-wide inspection cycles may require 40 or more years to complete.
There was no correlation between wastewater utility size and infrastructure inspection schedule.
In response to a question regarding the time interval since the last major facility upgrade
(excluding routine maintenance), about 75 percent of the assessed water utilities indicated that a
major upgrade has been made since 2005. The discrepancy is shown in Figure 1-31. Most of the
remaining responses indicated that significant upgrades had been made during the previous 15
years (1990 to 2004), with a small percentage (<10 percent for drinking water and <20 percent
for wastewater) reporting the most recent upgrade as occurring prior to 1990.
Infrastructure Inspection by Wastewater Utilities
9.1%
27.3%
18.2%
% of System Inspected
• 0 to 5%
• 5 to 10%
• 10 to 20%
D 20 to 30%
> 30%
36.4%
9.1%
Figure 1-30. Annual inspection rates for wastewater infrastructure.
Grey Water Usage
In response to a question pertaining to finished water after it has been drawn from the
distribution system for some initial use, 70 percent of the respondents answered that no "grey"
water is subsequently reclaimed and reused in their service area. Of those who indicated that they
do use grey water, in most cases only a small percentage (< 5 percent) was reused. A slight
increase of grey water usage is projected for 2028.
-61 -
-------
DW Utilities (N=28)
WW Utilities (N=22)
Before 1990
1990 to 1994
1995 to 1999
2000 to 2004
Since 2005
20 40 60 80
Percentage of Water Utilities
100
Figure 1-31. Most recent major upgrade to water system facilities.
CSOs and SSOs
Figure 1-32 summarizes the relative frequency of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and
sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) experienced by 22 of the wastewater respondents. About 14
percent of the respondents did not experience any overflows. Another 14 percent experienced
CSOs only, while half of those assessed experienced SSOs only. The balance (23 percent)
experienced both CSOs and SSOs.
CSOs and SSOs at Wastewater Utilities (N=22)
-13.6%
—— ^^^^^/
22.7%
13.6%
• Neither
• CSO Only
• SSO Only
DBoth
50.0%-
Figure 1-32. Occurrence of CSOs and SSOs at wastewater utilities.
-62-
-------
Unaccounted for Water
Figure 1-33 summarizes responses from drinking water utilities on unaccounted-for
water. As shown, approximately 48 percent of the respondents indicated relatively low values (<
10 percent), 44 percent reported moderate losses (10 to 20 percent), and just over 7 percent
reported high losses (> 20 percent).
Utilities with Unaccounted for Water (N=27)
7.4%
11.1%
7.4%
37.0%
Unaccounted for Water
• 0 to 5%
• 5 to 10%
• 10 to 15%
D 15 to 20%
>20%
37.0%
Figure 1-33. Occurrence of unaccounted for water at drinking water utilities.
Water Conservation Measures
Figure 1-34 presents results on the incidence of water conservation measures
implemented by drinking water respondents in the past 10 years. As shown, some form of
conservation measures (voluntary or mandatory or both) were imposed by approximately 65
percent of the utilities. About a third of the drinking water utilities did not implement any form
of water conservation in the past 10 years.
Conservation at Drinking Water Utilities (N=29)
37.9%
0.0%
34.5%
• None
• Voluntary Only
• Mandatory Only
DBoth
27.6%
Figure 1-34. Incidence of water conservation measures at drinking water utilities.
-63-
-------
Infiltration and Inflow
Figure 1-35 summarizes the responses on infiltration and inflow at wastewater utilities.
As shown, almost 20 percent indicated low (< 5 percent) infiltration and inflow, approximately
half (48 percent) of the responses indicated moderate (5 to 20 percent) infiltration and inflow,
while the balance (34 percent) indicated relatively high (> 20 percent) infiltration and inflow.
Utilities with Infiltration and Inflow (N=21)
23.8%
19.1%
9.5%
I & I Percentage
• 0 to 5%
• 5 to 10%
• 10 to 20%
D 20 to 30%
D >30%
14.3%
33.3%
Figure 1-35. Incidence of infiltration and inflow at wastewater utilities.
3.4.2.3. Agents of change
Future issues and potential problems were addressed in two questions posed to the
utilities. The first question asked utilities to rank six very broad issues that may affect their
operation and possibly require infrastructure changes in the next 40 years. A ranking of "1" was
given to the most important issue while a ranking of "6" was assigned to the least important.
Under this scoring system, a rank of 3.5 represents a mid-point or average outcome.
As shown in Figure 1-36, responses were remarkably consistent between the drinking
water and the wastewater sectors. Environmental regulations and economic constraints were
consistently flagged as the two most important issues with final average rankings between 2.0
and 2.5, well above the mid-point rank of 3.5. Population growth, institutional change, climate
change and lack of federal funds all ranked, on average, below the 3.5 mid-point for both the
drinking water and wastewater sectors.
The second question asked utility respondents to rank the potential severity often
specific problems that could impact operation, as indicated in the following instruction:
"Listed below are ten specific problems which may adversely affect the operation of your
(drinking water / wastewater) utility over the next 50 years. Please rank the ten problems
according to the seriousness of their anticipated impact on the operation and sustainability of
your water utility."
-64-
-------
I DW Utilities (N=30)
I WW Utilities (N=22)
Environmental Regulations
Economic Constraints
Population Growth
Institutional Change
Climate Change
Lack of Federal Funds
2.5
3 3.5 4
Average Rank
4.5
Figure 1-36. Major issues affecting water utility operation.
A rank of "1" was assigned to the most serious problem and "10" to the least serious.
Under this scoring system, a rank of 5.5 represents a mid-point or average outcome. Results,
summarized as an average rank in Figure 1-37, again show remarkable agreement between the
drinking water and wastewater sectors. In both cases, the top five challenges were identified as:
aging infrastructure, cost of energy, shortage of skilled work force, government regulations, and
decline in revenue. While potential climate change impacts were recognized as an impending
issue (indirectly through impaired water quality and reduced water supply), this issue was
viewed as a more distant concern in comparison to the immediate operational needs of the water
utility. It is worthwhile to recall that, during the period of this data gathering exercise in the
summer of 2008, oil prices around the globe and gasoline prices in the U.S. had reached new
historical highs. Concern over the rising cost of gasoline may be reflected in the high ranking for
the cost of energy.
DW Utilities (N=30)
WW Utilities (N=22)
Aging Infrastructure
Cost of Energy
Shortage of Skilled Workers
Government Regulations
Decline in Revenue
Decline in Government Aid *
Impaired Water Quality **
Reduced Water Supply
Cyber or Physical Attacks
Outdated Technology
Inadequate Capacity
* Issue considered by
wastewater sector only
** Issue considered by
drinking water sector only
2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5
Average Rank
7.5
8.5
Figure 1-37. Major issues affecting sustainability of water utility operation.
-65-
-------
3.4.2.4. Master plan and next steps
Projected Growth
Four out of five utility respondents expected demand for water service to increase over
the next 20 years (see Figure 1-38). This is consistent with population projections for the United
States, which forecast the number of U.S. residents to grow from 280 million to 420 million
during the period 2000 to 2050 (Hobbs and Stoops, 2002). About one in five water utilities
expected to maintain the status quo, while one utility in each sector anticipated a net decrease in
utility size and service over the next 20 years.
DW Utilities (N=30)
WW Utilities (N=21)
Increase
Decrease
Unsure
20 40 60 80
Percentage of Water Utilities
100
Figure 1-38. Projected utility growth over 20 years.
Master Plan
A master plan is a framework to facilitate future planning decisions. As shown in Figure
1-39, most respondents reported that they had developed a formal master plan. The response for
the master plan query closely mirrors the picture of anticipated growth (e.g., by comparing
Figures 1-38 and 1-39). It seems that most water utilities expect growth and most have a formal
mechanism in place to help plan for it. It is interesting to note, however, that of the 20 percent in
the drinking water group with no master plan, half of them (3 of 6 utilities) expect positive
growth over the next 20 years.
When asked whether the master plan is available to the public, over half indicated that it
is available, about 15 percent responded that a summary is available to the public, roughly 20
percent said that it is not available to the public and the balance were unsure if the master plan is
available to the public. When asked about the biggest challenge in implementing the master plan,
over half of the drinking water respondents identified funding as the primary challenge, and over
half of wastewater respondents pointed to government regulations. Other challenges that were
mentioned included growth, personnel, source water, competition with other utilities for funding,
politics, aging systems, timing for infrastructure expenditures, aligning financing with prioritized
-66-
-------
work, and rate requirements. Planning horizons ranged from 5 to 40 years with a median of about
20 years (see Figure 1-40).
I DW Utilities (N=30)
I WW Utilities (N=22)
Yes
Unsure
20 40 60 80
Percentage of Water Utilities
100
Figure 1-39. Water utilities with a master plan.
Asset Management
A significant percentage of water utilities have not implemented a formal asset
management program (see Figure 1-41). When asked if their utility is using a formal asset
management program in their treatment, storage, and distribution system operations,
approximately 50 percent of the drinking water respondents indicated that they had such a
program in place. A recent survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors (discussed in detail in
Section 3.1) found that cities employing asset management practices are "gaining the
information and knowledge they seek to determine the level of user rates that can lead to
system sustainability" (Anderson, 2007).
• DW Utilities (N=23)
• WW Utilities (N=19)
> 30 Yrs
21 to 30 Yrs
11 to 20 Yrs
1 to 10 Yrs
10 20 30 40
Percentage of Water Utilities
50
Figure 1-40. Time horizon for utility master plan (median is roughly 20 years).
-67-
-------
DW Utilities (N=29)
WW Utilities (N=22)
Yes
No
Unsure
E
20 40 60 80 100
Percentage of Water Utilities
Figure 1-41. Water utilities with asset management program.
3.5. AWWA State of the Water Industry
3.5.1. Methods
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) has conducted the State of the Water
Industry (SOTWI) annual survey since 2004 to identify and track issues in the water industry.
For its most recent report, issued in 2014, AWWA collected data from a random list of AWWA
members and contacts (AWWA, 2014). AWWA contacted 91,180 members and nonmembers
located in the U.S. and internationally via e-mail. A total of 1,739 respondents participated in the
survey on a voluntary basis. Survey respondents represent a variety of careers, and the majority
of respondents reported working in a drinking water or combined water/wastewater utility, or
working as a consultant, as illustrated in Figure 1-42.
The survey asked respondents to rate 30 issues affecting the water industry on a scale of 1
(unimportant) to 5 (critically important). These issues encompass a range of topics including the
state of water and sewer infrastructure, workforce composition, availability of financial
resources, security, climate change, and many more. The survey also included questions to
identify the prominence of climate change issues facing the water industry and the degree to
which the water industry is prepared to address these issues. The following questions directly
addressed climate change vulnerability:
• Overall, how prepared do you think the water sector is to address any impacts associated with
potential climate variability? (This question was asked of all respondents.)
• Does your utility include potential impacts from climate variability in your risk management
or planning processes? (This question was asked of utility personnel.)
-68-
-------
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
/X///x/>VXX/xX^>><
*& Hjp it** 0^ \O icp ^^V1 tX _^5 s*l£? C/ \^ /^ . O
Figure 1-42. Number of respondents for the 2014 SOTWI survey by career category (AWWA,
2014).
3.5.2. Findings
Results indicate that the state of water and sewer infrastructure is the largest issue facing
the water industry. Long-term water supply and financing are also ranked in the top five issues
by survey respondents. The complete results are presented in Table 1-21, which ranks the issues
according to the average score they received by survey respondents (on a scale of 1 to 5). The
table also presents the percentage of respondents that ranked the issue as "critically important"
(score of 5), and the number of respondents that scored each issue. Besides infrastructure, water
supply, and financing, other issues that ranked highly in this survey include public understanding
of the value of water resources and water systems and services, groundwater management and
overuse, watershed protection, and drought. Climate risk and vulnerability ranked only as
number 24 in this list of issues. It is important to note that the survey treated the "state of water
and sewer infrastructure" as a separate issue than "climate risk and resiliency," but this report
illustrates that these issues are closely related. Furthermore, it is unclear to what extent
respondents consider infrastructure impacts of climate change under the "state of water and
sewer infrastructure" category.
-69-
-------
Table 1-21. Issues Ranked by all 2014 SOTWI Respondents*
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Issue Facing Water Industry
State of water and sewer infrastructure
Long-term water supply availability
Financing for capital improvements
Public understanding of the value of water
Public understanding of the value of water
Groundwater management and overuse
Watershed protection
Drought or periodic water shortages
Emergency preparedness
Cost recovery
Acceptance of rate increases
Talent attraction and retention
Compliance with current regulations
Compliance with future regulations
Water conservation/efficiency
Water loss control
Aging workforce/anticipated retirements
Certification and training
Energy use and costs
Expanding water reuse/reclamation
Improving customer, constituent, and
Cyber-security issues
Wastewater resource recovery
Climate risk and resiliency
Physical security issues
Stormwater management and costs
Affordability for low-income households
Fracking/oil and gas activities
Price and supply of chemicals
Workforce diversity
Average
Score
4.57
4.51
4.41
4.31
4.27
4.19
4.18
4.10
4.05
3.96
3.94
3.93
3.90
3.87
3.87
3.86
3.82
3.81
3.77
3.74
3.67
3.64
3.60
3.54
3.52
3.44
3.44
3.40
3.38
2.96
Critically
Important
64%
38%
25%
24%
10%
Number of
Respondents
1,665
1,646
1,660
1,661
1,650
1,641
1,643
1,642
1,642
1,659
1,658
1,614
1,622
1,623
1,607
1,609
1,607
1,614
1,611
1,625
1,657
1,620
1,625
1,643
1,624
1,625
1,658
1,642
1,614
1,612
Note: * - From AWWA, 2014.
A comparison of the SOTWI survey results with those of the AWWA's 2013 and 2014
surveys demonstrates a shift in the relative prominence of issues facing the water industry. While
-70-
-------
the state of water and sewer infrastructure remains a top concern for survey respondents, water
supply availability has gained importance (as number 2 in 2014 versus number 4 in 2013). Issues
related to costs remain in the top 10 issues in 2014. Notably financing of capital costs is the #3
issue in both years (named "capital costs and availability" in 2013 versus "financing for capital
improvements" in 2014), and cost recovery as the number 10 (previously number 8 in 2013). The
relative importance of climate risk and resiliency dropped from number 12 in 2013 to number 24
in 2014. A full comparison of the top 15 issues in the 2013 and 2014 surveys is shown in Table
1-22.
Table 1-22. Top 15 Issues from the 2014 and 2013 SOTWI Surveys*
2014
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Issue
State of water and sewer
infrastructure
Long-term water supply
availability
Financing for capital
improvements
Public understanding of the
value of water resources
Public understanding of the
value of water systems and
services
Groundwater management
and overuse
Watershed protection
Drought or periodic water
shortages
Emergency preparedness
Cost recovery
Acceptance of rate increases
Talent attraction and
retention
Compliance with current
regulations
Compliance with future
regulations
Water conservation /
efficiency
Avg.
Score
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
2013
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Issue
State of water and sewer
infrastructure
Lack of public understanding of
the value of water
Capital costs and availability
Water supply and scarcity
Aging workforce/ talent
attraction and retention
Drought
Customer, constituent, and
community relationships
Cost recovery
Regulation and government
oversight
Emergency preparedness
Energy demand/use/costs
Climate risk and resiliency
Security
Declining water demands
Privatization and out-sourcing
Avg.
Score
4.6
4.3
4.3
4.1
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.0
3.0
Note: * - From AWWA (2014).
-71 -
-------
The survey addressed the topic of climate change resiliency in more detail through two
questions. All respondents were asked how well prepared they believe the water industry is to
address impacts from climate variability. The results in Figure 1-43 show that 40 percent of
respondents indicated that they believe the water industry is moderately prepared to address the
impacts of climate variability, while 50 percent believe that the industry is not at all prepared or
only slightly prepared. Only two percent of respondents believed that the industry was fully
prepared to address these impacts.
The survey also asked utility personnel whether their utilities have included potential
impacts from climate variability in their risk management or planning processes. Figure 1-44
shows the survey results, which indicate that only 29 percent of respondents were aware of an
active risk management or planning process designed to address impacts of climate variability at
their utility. In contrast, 50 percent of respondents indicated that their utilities had not addressed
the impacts of climate variability in these planning processes.
Overall, AWWA's SOTWI report (AWWA, 2014) indicates that vulnerability to climate
change is a concern in the water industry but that it is not as prominent as other issues troubling
this sector, such as the state of water and wastewater infrastructure and availability of financing
for capital improvements. Yet, as discussed earlier in this section, these issues are intrinsically
connected to climate risk and vulnerability. Some utilities are beginning to address potential
impacts of climate variability in their planning processes, and half of the survey respondents
believe that the industry is prepared moderately to fully to address the impacts of climate
variability.
Overall, how prepared do you think the water sector is to address any
impacts associated with potential climate variability?
I Not at all prepared
i Slightly prepared
Moderately prepared
I Very prepared
Fully prepared
Figure 1-43. Responses from all SOWTI survey participants on readiness for
potential climate change impacts (n=l,459) (AWWA, 2014).
-72-
-------
Does your utility include potential impacts from climate variability in your
risk management or planning processes?
i Yes
I No
In development but not implemented
i Don't know
Figure 1-44. Responses from utility employees on their utility's action to include
climate variability in its management or planning processes (n=791)
(AWWA, 2014).
3.6. Water Research Foundation Forecasting the Future
3.6.1. Methods
A 2012 report from the WRF identifies top trends that will affect the water industry over
the next 10 to 20 years (Brueck et al., 2012). The researchers implemented a survey to identify
trends in four broad categories:
• Environmental
• Technical
• Economic/Business
• Social/Political
Each of these four broad categories included key topic areas detailing a total of 40 future
trends. The report summarizes the results of a survey through which 17 utilities in North
America and abroad (the majority were North American) ranked the trends to identify their top
five trend areas for the water sector. The respondents ranged in size from mid-sized regional
service providers to large metropolitan area utilities. Respondents ranked each issue according to
its importance for the water sector and for the individual utility. This approach enabled the
researchers to identify trends that concern individual utilities that may not be a concern in the
water industry as a whole.
Following the survey, the researchers refined the ranking of trends through a scenario
modeling activity during a Futures workshop in Montreal, Canada. The researchers used the
results from the survey and the workshop to identify the top 10 trends for the water sector.
-73-
-------
3.6.2. Findings
The results of the initial survey of 17 participating utilities are presented in Figure 1-45,
which shows the nine top-rated trends for the industry as a whole as well as for individual
participating utilities. These nine trends scored a value of 20 or higher on both the water sector
scale and individual utility scale. Similar to other surveys discussed above, this survey found that
aging water and wastewater infrastructure ranked at the top of the list. Water availability,
financial/economic concerns, regulatory changes calling for higher water quality, and an aging
workforce also ranked high on this list of future trends. Five of these trends originate from the
Economic/Business category, while two trends come from each of the Environmental and
Societal/Political categories. No trends from the Technological category ranked among the top
nine trends.
Environmental Technological Economic/Business Societal/Political
TOP TRENDS COMMON TO BOTH THE WATER SECTOR
AND INDIVIDUAL UTILITY
u Water Sector • Individual Utility
Substantial capital requiredto replace and upgrade aging
water and wastewater infrastructure
Decreased availability and uncertain adequacy of water
resources, especially high quality freshwater sources
including uncertainties in new/emerging contaminants (e.g...
Prolonged recovery from the recession and financial crisis
Increasinguncertainty and volatility of economic and
business conditions
Regulations shift focus to stronger water quality / quantity
protection
Increased water and wastewater treatment levels/criteria to
meethigher standards or customer demands consume more
energv
Aging workforce (in developed countries] and world-wide
competiton for skilled technical resources
Managing for sustainabilrty (i.e., economic viability,
infrastructure stability, community sustain ability)
Rising feceral budget deficits; state and local governments
increasingly faced with budgetary and fiscal con5traint5
LJ
36
1 ""0
_J 40
29
I
I
!
1C
10
20
BO
40
50
SO
Figure 1-45. Top rated trends common to both the water sector and individual utility (Brueck et
al., 2012).
-74-
-------
In addition to these nine top trends, six trends received scores with values of 20 or greater
for the water industry but not for individual utilities. These additional trends are provided in
Figure 1-46.
Environmental Technological Economic/Business Societal/Political
ADDITIONAL HIGHLY RATED TRENDS FOR THE WATER SECTOR
u Water Sector • Individual Utility
Advances in technology achieve a nearly closed water loop.
thereby greatly expanding the water supply
Increased global demand for resources(energyand other
growth-related commodities) with constrained and/or
unreliable supplies
Increasing focus on public health protection (e.g.. due to aging
population, sensitive population, concerns about low levels of
a variety of compounds in water)
Figure 1-46. Additional highly rated trends for the water sector (Brueck et al., 2012).
Following completion of the survey, participants at a two-day workshop held in
Montreal, Canada, discussed and refined the top trends identified in the survey. Using a scenario-
based analysis, the workshop participants consolidated overlapping key trends and added new
trends. The analysis resulted in the following 10 key trends, which were also validated by WRF
subscribers via a web conference:
1. Uncertain economy, financial instability
2. Decreased availability/adequacy of water resources
3. Aging water infrastructure/capital needs
4. Shifting water demands (per capita reduction)
5. Changing workforce, dynamic talent life-cycle
6. Expanding technology application
7. Mass/social media explosion
8. Increasing/expanding regulations
9. Efficiency drivers, resource optimization
10. Climate uncertainty
-75-
-------
This revised list identifies the consolidated economic concerns as the top trend, followed
by decreasing water availability and aging infrastructure. While vulnerability to climate change
did not rank in the original top nine trends, the workshop added climate uncertainty as a key
trend. Once again, the issue addressing climate change (in this case "uncertainty"), was included
as a trend separate from those addressing issues closely linked with climate vulnerability, such as
aging water infrastructure and availability of water resources. The results of this survey and
analysis recognize climate uncertainty as one of the top 10 trends, but they do not recognize the
link between climate uncertainty and other areas of concern.
3.7. Water Research Foundation Effective Climate Change Communication
A forthcoming report on the results of a WRF survey provides insight on how Americans
view climate change, its impacts on drinking water services, and their water utility's role in
preparing for climate change. The primary findings of this report are summarized in WRF's
publication (Raucher and Raucher, 2014). The researchers conducted a national survey targeting
the population of Americans 18 years and older who receive their water from a community water
system. The survey respondents consisted of a sample of households that would be representative
of the U.S. population. A total of 1,201 participants completed the online survey, based on which
the views of Americans were assessed.
Results of the survey indicate that most respondents trust their water utilities as a source
of information about climate change (71 percent). Overall, the survey found that respondents
overwhelmingly expressed concern that extreme weather events will negatively impact their
utility's ability to provide safe drinking water (72 percent). They also expect their water utility to
play a role in preparing for extreme weather and climate change. The vast majority of Americans
believe that their water utility should account for climate change in future plans (75 percent), and
nearly 75 percent of respondents are willing to pay additional monthly fees to ensure that they
continue to have a safe, reliable source of drinking water. These results stress that water utility
customers rely on their water providers to take a lead role in preparing for the impacts of climate
change.
4. Assessment Summary on Adaptation Readiness
The investigation documented in Part I report clearly indicates that the U.S. drinking
water and wastewater infrastructure is under stress from a combination of factors including aging
water infrastructure, financial resources, population growth, and the newly recognized impacts
from climate change. These factors form a "perfect storm" impacting long-term sustainability as
well as service functions. The distribution of water, the availability of water resources, and
changes in water quality affect how water utilities can and must adapt to create and maintain
infrastructure to meet the needs of society. Simultaneously, water utilities must consider
traditional and emerging stresses such as increasing pressure from population growth,
concentration of populations in urban areas, economic changes, and more stringent regulatory
requirements.
Climate change has been an active area of research, debate and concern for well over a
quarter of a century. While there is still uncertainty in modeling and analysis of climate change
impacts, especially at the local watershed scale, a large body of literature (e.g., IPCC, 2013;
-76-
-------
USGCRP, 2014) indicates that changes in precipitation, water quality, and frequency and
severity of extreme weather events are will continue to affect water infrastructure. The remainder
of this report provides a synthesis of current knowledge and further investigates the degree and
nature of climate change in precipitation and its hydrological impacts on watershed hydrology
(both in water quantity and water quality). The results show climate change having far-reaching
impacts on all aspects of water resources and hence the water infrastructure functions. These
effects can affect the U.S. water, air and energy regulatory programs as described in Section 2.4
and detailed in Appendix I-A.
Several nation-wide assessments, including one conducted for this report, show a suite of
priority factors water utility managers are facing today. In a holistic view, the climate change
interacts with other issues, concerns, and priorities in the water sector, as discussed earlier in this
report. These other issues, concerns, and priorities can be distilled down into the following 10
major issues:
• Aging infrastructure. The U.S. EPA's 2011 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
and Assessment found that the nation's community water systems will need to invest
$384.2 billion in the 20-year period of January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2030 in
order to continue to provide safe drinking water to their consumers at current population
levels (U.S. EPA, 2013a). Based on the Clean Watershed Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008
Report to Congress (U.S. EPA, 2008a) the estimated total POTW construction needs for
the nation for the next 20 years is $298.1 billion. The American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) has consistently warned that the nation is lagging in its replacement
and rehabilitation of water and wastewater infrastructure. Insufficient investments in our
infrastructure would result in increasing costs, violations, health concerns, and an
inability to meet future demands and growth.
• Population growth and demographic shifts. The U.S. Census Bureau projects an increase
in the population of the U.S. from 314 million in 2012 to 420 million in 2060 (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2012) and a large spatial variation in population change across the
country, with the largest increases generally occurring in areas (e.g., the Southwest)
where water use is already the most stressed.
• Public health: Waterborne infectious disease is still a significant concern in the U.S. The
state of the water, wastewater, and storm water infrastructure has a direct bearing on the
risk of waterborne disease.
• Economic development. Economic development may result in increased (and more
spatially concentrated) water usage, increased wastewater production, increased
stormwater runoff and non-point source pollution. Technological innovation and
development are essential ingredients to ensure that future growth occurs in a sustainable
manner.
• Energy use and production. Global energy demand is increasing, and the production and
use of energy are recognized as a major political, economic and environmental factors in
shaping our world. There is a strong linkage between the water and energy sectors since
water is required to produce and use energy, and energy is used to clean, transport and
use water. Most water supply and wastewater systems are dependent upon pumping and
-77-
-------
most water and wastewater treatment plant components need sources of energy to
perform their functions.
• Regulatory developments: As emerging threats to water quality have appeared over time
and the science of drinking water protection has advanced, the regulatory landscape has
become more complex. Drinking water utilities must increasingly balance risk-risk
tradeoffs: for example, providing adequate protection against waterborne disease
outbreaks while minimizing the dangers posed by DBFs. Aspects of the federal
regulatory framework for ambient waters and drinking water, and the statutes that
authorize them, can be used to help utilities prepare for future variability in water supply
and quality and disruptive climate events.
• Groundwater depletion and contamination: Groundwater is an important but limited
resource that is susceptible to overuse and contamination. It is part of a hydrologic cycle
that interacts with lakes, rivers, creeks, springs, wetlands and oceans. Groundwater
quality can be affected by natural processes (e.g., saltwater intrusion, a process that
occurs in coastal aquifers due to hydraulic connectivity between the aquifer and the
seawater) and anthropogenic (human) activities (e.g., resource extraction, carbon
sequestration).
• Non-point-source contamination: Non-point sources of pollution remain a significant
threat to the quality of surface water and groundwater. A significant portion of non-point-
source pollution is agriculture, with its use of fertilizer, pesticides, and salt-containing
irrigation water. These can contaminate drainage water as it moves from the root zone to
the underlying groundwater. The problem can be expected to get worse in the future as
agriculture must intensify to keep up with the demands for food, fiber, and energy crops.
In urban areas, wastewater outfalls and storm water runoff are important non-point
sources.
• Security: Water utilities have historically been concerned with security issues such as
accidental pollution spills into their raw water sources, and vandalism or other criminal
activities resulting in damage to equipment. The twenty-first century has brought an
increasing concern over intentional acts directed at water and wastewater utilities.
Worth to note, various assessments described in the preceding sections are difficult to
compare directly because of the differences in the timing of the assessments, the range of issues
ranked by respondents, and the scope of each study. Three key issues, however, are consistently
ranked as top concerns on the assessments: 1) Aging infrastructure; 2) Economic stresses,
uncertainty, or instability; and 3) Water supply availability. Climate change, while identified as a
concern in several surveys, was not among the highest-ranked issues in any of the survey results.
A part of the reason is that in formulation of the questions, none of the assessments framed
climate change as being related to the resiliency of water infrastructure. Rather these assessments
categorized climate change, climate resiliency, and/or climate risk as independent factors
separately from other key concerns, when they all could and should be addressed together.
When the results are further analyzed, climate change is attributed to many top concerns
that utilities have on infrastructure sustainability. Key priorities identified in these surveys,
including water infrastructure, water availability/drought, affordability, groundwater
-78-
-------
management and overuse, storm water management, water quality, and emergency preparedness
for storms/hurricanes, are all related to the concept of infrastructure sustainability in the face of
climate change. Another important factor is the actionable science and the explicit nature of
long-term climate change effects. Unless these climate-related impacts are quantified, it is
difficult for water utilities to rate climate change as a top priority when other priorities wait for
actions and investment. The actionable science question was raised high in the EPA's first
national workshop on water infrastructure adaptation to climate changes held in 2009 in Crystal
City, Virginia (EPA, 2009d).
It is also important to point out that for practical planning and engineering, the challenges
associated with the top ten priority issues cannot be addressed individually or independently
from climate. Rather, the intersection of the various trends, risks and stressors, together as a
whole present the greatest challenges to maintaining a modern and fully functional water
resources infrastructure. Integrating the impacts of climate change into the master plans for water
infrastructure construction, repair, and maintenance offers an opportunity to address many of the
concerns identified in this report, such as water availability, water quality, cost control, and
resilience in the face of extreme weather events, and ultimately to achieve the desired water
infrastructure sustainability.
These factors are at the center of national infrastructure adaptation research. The climate
change impacts and many of the issues identified in the Part One report can be addressed
systematically by adaptive planning for effective climate change adaptation. Tools and
procedures for adaptation are discussed and case studies are described in the remainder of this
report in Parts II, III, and IV.
5. References
Adler, R.W., (2010). Climate change and the hegemony of state water law. Stanford
Environmental Law Journal, 29(1), 1-61.
Alliance to Save Energy, (2002). Taking advantage of untapped energy and water efficiency
opportunities in municipal water systems. Accessed at
http://www.watergy.org/resources/publications/watergy.pdf
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), (2005). Report Card on America's Infrastructure.
Accessed at http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/
ASCE, (2009). Report card on America's infrastructure. Accessed at
http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2009/
ASCE, (2013). Report card on America's /'w/rastructure. Accessed at
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/#p/grade-sheet/gpa
American Water Works Association (AWWA), (2003). Water stats 2002 distribution survey CD-
ROM. AWWA, Denver, CO.
AWWA, (2012). Buried no longer: Confronting America's water infrastructure challenge.
February 2012. Accessed at
http://www.awwa.Org/Portals/0/files/legreg/documents/BuriedNoLonger.pdf
-79-
-------
AWWA, (2014). State of the water industry report. Accessed at http://www.awwa.org/resources-
tools/water-utility-management/state-of-the-water-industry.aspx
Anderson, R. F., B. Rosenberg, and J. Sheahan, (2005). National city water survey 2005. U. S.
Conference of Mayors Urban Water Council, Washington DC. Accessed at
http://www.usmayors.org/74thWinterMeeting/NationalCityWaterSurvey2005.pdf
Anderson, R. F., (2007). National city water survey - The status of asset management programs
in public water and sewer infrastructure in America's major cities. Mayor's Water
Council, The U.S. Conference of Mayors, Washington, DC, 28 pp. Accessed at
http://usmayors.org/pressreleases/documents/watersurvey_report_0907.pdf
Anderson, R. F., (2010). Trends in local government expenditures on public water and
wastewater services and infrastructure: Past, present and future. The U.S. Conference of
Mayors, Mayors Water Council. Washington, DC. Accessed at
http://usmayors.org/publications/201002-mwc-trends.pdf
Ashley, R., J. Blanksby, A. Cashman, L. Jack, G. Wright, J. Packman, L. Fewtrell, T. Poole, and
C. Maksimovic, (2007). Adaptable urban drainage: Addressing change in intensity,
occurrence and uncertainty of stormwater (AUDACIOUS). Built Environment., 33(1):70-
84.
Barnett, T.P., J. C. Adam, and D. P. Lettenmaier, (2005). Potential impacts of a warming climate
on water availability in snow-dominated regions. Nature., 438:303-309.
Barsugli, J., C. Anderson, J. B. Smith, and J. M. Vogel. (2009). Options for improving climate
modeling to assist water utility planning for climate change. Water Utility Climate
Alliance, San Francisco, CA. 144 pp. Accessed at
http://www.wucaonline.org/assets/pdf/pubs_whitepaper_120909.pdf
Battin, J., M. W. Wiley, M. H. Ruckelshaus, R.N. Palmer, E. Korb, K.K. Bartz, and H. Imaki,
(2007). Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. PNAS,
104:6720-6725.
BP, (2014). Statistical review of world energy. Available online at:
http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/Energy-economics/statistical-review-2014/BP-
statistical-review-of-world-energy-2014-full-report.pdf
Brekke, L.D., J. E. Kiang, J. R. Olsen, R. S. Pulwarty, D. A. Raff, D. P. Turnipseed, R. S. Webb,
and K. D. White, (2009). Climate change and water resources management: A federal
perspective. U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 1331. 65 pp. Accessed at
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1331/Circl331.pdf
Brown, C., (2010). The end of reliability. J. Wat Res Plann Manag., 136(2):143-145.
Brueck, T., D. O'Berry, L. Blankenship, and P. Brink, (2012). Forecasting the future: Progress,
change, and predictions for the water sector. Water Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Accessed at
http://www.waterrforg/ExecutiveSummaryLibrary/4232_ProjectSummary.pdf
-80-
-------
Bureau of Reclamation, (2003). Water 2025: Preventing crisis and conflict in the west. U.S.
Department of the Interior. Accessed at
http://biodiversity.ca.gov/Meetings/archive/water03/water2025.pdf
Chang, N.-B., B. Vannah, and Y. J. Yang, (2014). Comparative sensor fusion between
hyperspectral and multispectral satellite sensors for monitoring microcystin distribution
in Lake Erie. IEEE Journal. 10.1109/JSTARS.2014.2329913.
Charron, D.F., M. K. Thomas, D. Waltner-Toews, J. J. Aramini, T. Edge, R.A. Kent, A. R.
Maarouf, and J. Wilson, (2004). Vulnerability of waterborne diseases to climate change
in Canada: A review. J ToxicolEnviron Health., Part A, 67:1667-1677.
Clark, R. M., (1978). The Safe Drinking Water Act: implications for planning. In D. Holtz and S.
Sebastian (eds.). Municipal Water Systems - The Challenge for Urban Resources
Management. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, pp. 117-137.
Clark, R. M., W. M. Grayman, and R. M. Males, (1988). Contaminant propagation in
distribution systems. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 114(2): 929-943.
Clark, R. M., and W. A. Feige, (1993). Meeting the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water
Act. In M. Clark and R. S. Summers. Lancaster, PA (edts), Strategies and Technologies
for Meeting the Requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Technomic
Publishing Company Inc.
Clark, R. M., W. M. Grayman, and J. A. Goodrich, (199la). Water quality modeling: its
regulatory implications. Proc., American Water Works Association Research Foundation
(AwwaRF)/Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Conference on Water Quality
Modeling in Distribution Systems, Cincinnati, OH.
Clark, R. M., W. M. Grayman, J. A. Goodrich, R. A. Deininger, and A. F. Hess, (1991b). Field
testing of distribution water quality models. Journal - AWWA, 83(7):67-75.
Clark, R. M., G. S. Rizzo, J. A. Belknap, and C. Cochrane, (1999). Water quality and the
replacement of drinking water infrastructure: the Washington, DC case study. Journal of
Water Supply Research and Technology - Aqua, 48(3): 106-114.
Clark, S., (2010). Water quality and treatment impacts of a watershed forest fire. Proc. in Water
Quality Technology Conference and Exposition (WQTC), November 14-18, 2010,
Savannah, Georgia.
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), (2002). Future investment in drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure. Congressional Budget Office, Washington, D.C., 58 pp.
Assessed at http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/39xx/doc3983/! 1-18-
watersystems.pdf
CBO, (2009). Potential impacts of climate change in the United States. Congressional Budget
Office, Washington, D.C., 25 pp. Assessed at
http://www.cbo.gOv/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/l 0 Ixx/docl 0107/05-04-
climatechange_forweb .pdf
-81 -
-------
Cooley, H., J. Fulton, and P.H. Gleick (2011). Water for energy: Future water needs for
electricity in the intermountain west. Pacific Institute. Assessed at
http://www.pacinst.Org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/water_for_energy3.pdf
Coulibaly, P., (2006). Spatial and temporal variability of Canadian seasonal precipitation (1900-
2000). Advances in Water Resources, 29: 1846-1865.
Craig, R. K., (2009). Climate change comes to the Clean Water Act: Now what? Washington &
Lee Journal of Energy Climate and Environment, l(l):9-49.
Craig, R. K., (2010). Stationarity is dead - Long live transformation: Five principles for climate
change adaptation law. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 34:9-73.
Daigger, G. T. (2007). Wastewater management in the 21st century. Journal of Environmental
Engineering, 133(7): 671-680.
Delpla, I, A.-V. Jung, E. Baures, M. Clement, and O. Thomas, (2009). Impacts of climate
change on surface water quality in relation to drinking water production. Environment
International, 35(8): 1225-1233.
Dominguez-Faus, R., C. Folberth, J. Liu, A.M. Jaffe AM, and P. J. J. Alvarez, (2013). Climate
change would increase the water intensity of irrigated corn ethanol. Environ. Sci. &
Technol., 47: 6030-6037.
Ewing, R., K. Bartholomew, S. Winkelman, J. Walters, andD. Chen, (2007). Growing cooler:
The evidence on urban development and climate change. Urban Land Institute (ULI),
Washington, D.C.
Fischman, A., (2012). Preserving legal avenues for climate justice in Florida post-American
Electric Power. Florida Law Review, 64:295-304.
Friedrich, E., S. Pillay, and C.A. Buckley, (2009). Carbon footprint analysis for increasing water
supply and sanitation in South Africa: a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17: 1-
12.
Gleick, P.H., (2006). The world's water, 2006-2007: the biennial report on freshwater resources.
Island Press, Washington, DC. 392 pp.
Grindler, B. J., (1967). Water and water rights: A treatise on the laws of water and allied
problems: eastern, western, federal. Vol 3. Indianapolis, IN: The Allan Smith Company.
Hamin, E. M., and N. Gurran, (2008). Urban form and climate change: Balancing adaptation and
mitigation in the U.S. and Australia. Habitat International, 33(3):238-245.
Hamlet, A. F., and D. P. Lettenmaier, (1999). Effects of climate change on hydrology and water
resources in the Columbia River basin. J. American Water Resources Association
(JAWRA), 35(6): 1597-1623.
Harr, M. E., (1987). Reliability-based design in civil engineering. McGraw Hill, New York, 291
pp.
Hobbs, F. andN. Stoops, (2002). U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Special Reports, Series
CENSR-4.
-82-
-------
Houghton, J., (2004). Global warming—The complete briefing. Third Edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), (2001). Climate Change: Synthesis Report.
A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Watson, R.T. and the Core Writing Team
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY,
USA, 398 pp.
IPCC, (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [Stacker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp.
IPCC, (2014): Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working
Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K.
Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S.
Schlomer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel, and J.C. Minx (eds.)] Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
International Energy Agency (IEA). (2013a). World energy outlook 2013. 232 pp.
LEA, (2013b). Redrawing the energy-climate map. 9 rue de la Federation 75739 Paris Cedex 15,
France, 126 pp. Accessed at
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2013/energyclimatemap/Redrawi
ngEnergyClimateMap.pdf
Jacobs, K., Adams, D. B., and P. Gleick, (2001), Chapter 14, Potential consequences of climate
variability and change for the water resources of the United States. Climate Change
Impacts On the United States -the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and
Change. Jerry Meilillo, Anthony Janetos and Thomas Karl (eds.), Cambridge University
Press, New York, NY 2001.
Kaushal, S.S., G. E. Likens, N. A. Jaworski, M. L. Pace, A.M. Sides, D. Seekell, K. T. Belt, D.
H. Secor, and R .L. Wingate, (2010). Rising stream and river temperatures in the United
States. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(9):461-466.
Kirmeyer, G.J., M. Friedman, K. Martel, D. Howie, M. LeChevallier, M. Abbaszadegan, M.
Karim, J. Funk, and J. Harbour, (2001). Pathogen intrusion into the distribution system.
Denver, Colo., AwwaRF and AWWA, Denver, CO.
Levin, R.B., P.R. Epstein, T.E. Ford, W. Harrington, E. Olson and E.G. Reichard, (2002). US
drinking water challenges in the 21st century. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(1):
43-52.
Macdonald, R.W., T. Harner, and J. Fefy, (2005). Recent climate change in the Arctic and its
impact on contaminant pathways and interpretation of temporal trend data. Science of the
Total Environment, 342:5-86.
-83-
-------
Mantua, N., I. Tohver, and A. Hamlet, (2010). Climate change impacts on stream flow extremes
and summertime stream temperature and their possible consequences for freshwater
salmon habitat in Washington State. Climatic Change, 102(1-2): 187-223.
Mays, L. W., (2002). Urban Water Infrastructure: A Historical Perspective. In Larry W. Mays,
ed., Urban Water Supply Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 1.3-1.66
McGuire Environmental Consultants, and R. Patrick, (2005). Update of strategic assessment of
future of water utilities: Trend paper. AwwaRF, Denver, CO.
McKenney, D.W., J.H. Pedlar, P. Papadopol, and M.F. Hutchinson, (2006). The development of
1901-2000 historical monthly climate models for Canada and the United States.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 138:69-81.
McNeill, L.S., M. Edwards, (2002). The importance of temperature in assessing iron pipe
corrosion in water distribution systems. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment.
77(3):229-42.
Means, III, E. G., N. West, and R. Patrick, (2005a). Population growth and climate change: Will
pose tough challenges for water utilities. Journal - AWWA, 97(8):40-46.
Means III, E. G., L. Ospina, and R. Patrick, (2005b). Ten primary trends and their implications
for water utilities. Journal - AWWA, 97(7):64-77.
Meehl, G.A., W. M. Washington, W. D. Collins, J. M. Arblaster, A. Hu, L. E. Buja, W. G.
Strand, and H. Teng, (2006). How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise?
Science, 307: 1769-1772.
Milly, P.C.D., J. Betancourt, M. Falkenmark, R.M.Hirsch, Z.W. Kundzewicz, D.P. Lettenmaier,
and R. J. Stouffer. (2008). Stationarity is dead: whither water management? Science, 319:
573-574.
Mote, P.W., E. Parson, A.F. Hamlet, W.S. Keeton, D. Lettenmaier, N. Mantua, E.L. Miles, D.W.
Peterson, D.L. Peterson, R. Slaughter, and A.K. Snover, (2003). Preparing for climate
change: The water, salmon, and forests of the Pacific Northwest. Climate Change, 61:45-
88.
The National Academies, (2009). Informing decisions in a changing climate. Panel on Strategies
and Methods for Climate-Related Decision Support, National Research Council of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), (2012). Global Sea Level
Rise Scenarios for the United States National Climate Assessment. NOAA Technical
Report OAR CPO-1. Assessed at
http://cpo.noaa.gov/sites/cpo/Reports/2012/NO AA_SLR_r3.pdf
National Research Council (NRC), (2006). Drinking water distribution systems: Assessing and
reducing risks. National Academy Press, Washington DC, 2006, pp. 15-46.
NRC, (2007). Water implications of biofuels production in the United States. Report brief.
Assessed athttp://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/biofuels_brief_fmal.pdf
-84-
-------
Overpeck, J.T., B. L. Otto-Bliesner, G. H. Miller, D. R. Muhs, R. B. Alley, and J. T. Kiehl,
(2006). Paleoclimatic evidence for future ice-sheet instability and rapid sea-level rise.
Science, 311:1747-1750.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), (2012). Climate and energy-water-land system
interactions - Technical report to the U.S. Department of Energy in support of the
national climate assessment. PNNL-21185. Assessed at
http://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-21185.pdf
Paerl, P.W., and V. J. Paul, (2012). Climate change: Links to global expansion of harmful
Cyanobacteria. Water Research, 46, 1349-1363.
Panguluri, S., W. M. Grayman, and R. M. Clark., (2006). Distribution system water quality
report: a guide to the assessment and management of drinking water quality in
distribution systems. EPA Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
Pielke Jr., R., G. Prins, S. Rayner, and D. Sarewitz, (2007). Lifting the taboo on adaptation.
Nature, 445:597-598.
Princiotta, F., (2009). Global climate change and the mitigation challenge. Journal-Air and
Waste Management Association (A&WMA), 59(10):1194-1211.
Ranatunga, T., S.T.Y. long, Y. Sun, and YJ. Yang, (2014). A total water management analysis
of the Las Vegas Wash watershed, Nevada. Physical Geography, 3 5 (3): 220-244.
Raucher, K., and R. Raucher, (2014). Effective Climate Change Communication to Water Utility
Stakeholders. Advances in Water Research, 24(2): 14-18.
Reitze, Jr., A.W., (2011). The intersection of climate change and Clean Air Act stationary source
programs. Arizona State Law Journal, 43:901-942.
Rial, J.A., (2004). Abrupt climate change: chaos and order at orbital and millennial scales.
Global and Planetary Change, 41:95-109.
Ruhl, J.B., (2010). Climing mount mitigation: A proposal for legislative suspension of climate
change mitigation litigation. Washington & Lee Journal of Energy, Climate &
Environment, 71:71-91.
Sham, C.H., M.E. Tuccillo, and J. Rooke, (2013). Effects of wildfire on drinkingwater utilities
and best practices for wildfire risk reduction and mitigation. Water Research Foundation.
Assessed at http://www.waterrf.org/PublicReportLibrary/4482.pdf
Stewart, IT., D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger, (2004). Changes in snowmelt runoff timing in
western North America under a 'business as usual' climate change scenario. Climate
Change, 62:217-232.
Towler, E., B. Raucher, B. Rajagopalan, A. Rodriguez, D. Yates, andR.S. Summers, (2011)
Incorporating climate change uncertainty in a cost assessment for a new municipal source
water. J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage, 138(5), 396-402.
U.S. Census Bureau, (2012). 2012 to 2060 Population Projections. Assessed at
http://www.census.gov/population/projections/data/national/
-85-
-------
U.S. Congress, (2007). FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law 110-16, Dec. 26,
2007.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), (1989a). Drinking water; national primary
drinking water regulations; total coliforms (including fecal coliforms and E. coli).
Federal Register. 54(124), 27544.
U.S. EPA, (1989b). Drinking water; national primary drinking water regulations; filtration
disinfection; turbidity, Giardi lamblia, viruses, Legionella, and heterotrophic bacteria.
Federal Register. 54(124), 27486.
U.S. EPA, (2002b). National primary drinking water regulations: Long term 1 enhanced surface
water treatment rule. Federal Register. 67(9), 1812.
U.S. EPA, (2006a). National primary drinking water regulations: Long term 2 enhanced surface
water treatment rule. Federal Register. 71(3), 654.
U.S. EPA, (2006b). National primary drinking water regulations: Ground water rule. Federal
Register. 71(216), 65574.
U.S. EPA, (2009a). 2006 community water system survey, February 2009, EPA 815-R-09-001,
Washington, DC. Assessed at
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/pws/upload/cwssreportvolumeI2006.pdf
U.S. EPA, (2009b). Mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases. Federal Register. 74(209), 56260
-56519.
U.S. EPA, (2009c). Drinking water contaminant candidate list 3—Final. Federal Register. Vol.
74 FR, No. 194, p. 51850, October 8, 2009.
US EPA, (2010a). Light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards and corporate average
fuel economy standards; Final rule. Federal Register. 75(88), 25324.
U.S. EPA, (201 Ob). Prevention of significant deterioration and Title V greenhouse gas tailoring
rule. Federal Register. 75(106), 31514.
U.S. EPA, (2010c). NPDES permit writers' manual. EPA-833-K-10-001. Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, (2011). Announcement of federal underground injection control (UIC) Class VI
program for carbon dioxide (CCh) geologic sequestration (GS) wells. Federal Register.
76(179). 56982.
U.S. EPA, (2012a). Facility level information on greenhouse gases tool. Accessed at
http ://ghgdata. epa.gov/ghgp/main. do.
U.S. EPA, (2012b). 2017 and later model year light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and
corporate average fuel economy standards; final rule. Federal Register. 77(199), 62624.
U.S. EPA, (2012c). Standards of performance for greenhouse gas emissions for new stationary
sources: Electric utility generating units. Federal Register. 77(72), 22392.
U.S. EPA, (2012d). Basic information on the chemical contaminant rules. Accessed at
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/chemicalcontaminantrules/basicinformation
.cfm.
-86-
-------
U.S. EPA, (2012e). Request for nominations of drinking water contaminants for the fourth
contaminant candidate list. Federal Register. 77(89), 27057.
U.S. EPA, (2012f). National water program 2012 strategy: Response to climate change, EPA-
850-K-12-004, Washington, DC 20460.
U.S. EPA, (2013a). Drinking water infrastructure needs survey and assessment: Fifth report to
Congress. Office of Water, EPA 816-R-13-006. 70 pp.
U.S. EPA, (2013b). Fiscal year 2011 drinking water and ground water statistics. EPA 816-R-13-
003.
U.S. EPA, (2013e). National primary drinking water regulations: Revisions to the total coliform
rule. Federal Register. 78(30), 10270.
U.S. EPA, (2014a). Withdrawal of proposed standards of performance for greenhouse gas
emissions from new stationary sources: Electric utility generating units. Federal Register.
79(5), 1352.
U.S. EPA, (2014b). Standards of performance for greenhouse gas emissions from new stationary
sources: Electric utility generating units; proposed rule. Federal Register. 79(5), 1430.
U.S. EPA, (2014c). Carbon pollution emission guidelines for existing stationary sources: Electric
utility generating units; proposed rule. Federal Register. 79(117), 34830.
U.S. EPA, (2014d). Information about chloramine in drinking water. Accessed at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/chloramine/pdfs/chloramine2.pdf.
U.S. EPA, (2014e). Water resource adaptation program (WRAP). Accessed at
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/wswrd/wq/wrap/basic.html.
U.S. EPA, (2014f). 2013 Highlights of progress: Responses to climate change by the National
Water Program. Office of Water, EPA 850-R-l4-002, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, (2014g). WaterSense. Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, DC. Accessed
at http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/. Updated: July 2014.
U.S. EPA, (2014h). Climate ready water utilities (CRWU). Office of Water: Washington, DC
20460. Accessed at http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/watersecurity/climate/index.cfnx
Updated: July 2014.
U.S EPA, (2014i). Voluntary energy and climate programs. Accessed at
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/voluntaryprograms.html on August 1,
2014.
U.S. EPA, (2014J). Water infrastructure: Moving toward sustainability. Accessed at
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/sustain/index.cfm on August 1, 2014.
U.S. EPA, (2014k). Clean energy. Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/index.html on
August 1, 2014.
U.S. EPA, (20141). Clean automotive technology. Accessed at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/technology on August 1, 2014.
-87-
-------
U.S. EPA, (2014m). Air research. Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/air-research on
August 1, 2014.
U.S. EPA, (2014n). Climate change research. Accessed at
http://www.epa.gov/research/climatescience/ on August 1, 2014.
U.S. EPA, (2014o). Water resources impacts from traditional and alternative energy productions
in the United States. EPA 600/R-14/272. 25 Ip.
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), (2014). Climate change impacts in the
United States. U.S. National Climate Assessment. Accessed at
http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), (2006). Securing wastewaterfacilities. Report
to the Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate. Accessed at
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06390.pdf
van Verseveld, W.J., J. J. McDonnell, and K. Lajtha, (2008). A mechanistic assessment of
nutrient flushing at the catchment scale. J. Hydrology., 358:268- 287.
Walker, W.R., M.S. Hrezo, and CJ. Haley. (1991). Management of Water Resources for
Drought Condition. National Water Summary 1988-89—Hydrologic Events and Floods
and Droughts. Paulson, R.W., Chase, E.B., Roberts, R.S., and Moody, D.W. (eds.).
United States Geological Survey. Water-Supply Paper 2375.
Walther, G.-R., (2010). Community and ecosystem responses to recent climate change.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1549):
2019-2024.
Water Research Foundation (WRF), (2009). Changes in storm intensity and frequency. The
Climate Change Clearing House. Accessed at
http://www.theclimatechangeclearinghouse.org/ClimateChangeImpacts/ChangesStormInt
ensityFrequency/Pages/default.aspx
Westerhoff, G., H. Pomerance, and S. Robinson, (2005). It's all about leadership. Underground
Infrastructure Management, Jan/Feb: 22-25.
West Virginia American Water, (2014). Answers to the top questions about your water.
Accessed at http://www.amwater.com/files/Kanawha%20-
%20Answers%20to%20Top%20Questions%20-%2012%20x%2021.75.pdf on June 25,
2014.
Whitehead, P. G., R.L. Wilby, R.W. Battarbee, M. Kernan, and A. J. Wade, (2009). A review of
the potential impacts of climate change on surface water quality. Hydrological Sciences.
54(1):101-123.
Whitehead, P.G., R.L. Wilby, D. Butterfield, and AJ. Wade, (2006). Impacts of climate change
on in-stream nitrogen in a lowland chalk stream: An appraisal of adaptation strategies.
Science of the Total Environment, 365:360-273.
Wilby, R.L., (2007). A review of climate change impacts on the built environment. Built
Environment, 33(l):31-45.
-88-
-------
Woodward, G., D.M. Perkins, and L.E. Brown, (2010). Climate change and freshwater
ecosystems: impacts across multiple levels of organization. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1549): 2093-2106.
Yang, Y.J., (2010). Re-define adaptation of water resource infrastructures to a non-stationary
climate (Editorial). Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management. 136(3):297-
298.
Yang Y.J., and J.A. Goodrich, (2014). Toward quantitative analysis of water-energy-urban-
climate nexus for urban adaptation planning. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering.
5:22-28.
-89-
-------
Appendix 1-A
Water and Air Laws and Regulations Relevant to Climate Change Adaptation for Water
1. Safe Drinking Water Act and Regulations
1.1. Total coliform rule and the revised total coliform rule
The Total Coliform Rule (54 FR 27544; U.S. EPA, 1989a) set an MCLG and MCL for
total coliforms, which serve as an indicator of potential bacterial contamination, and established
a monitoring regimen. This rule is currently still in effect. However, under the SDWA
requirement for EPA to review and revise, if appropriate, existing regulations every 6 years, the
agency published its decision in July 2003 to revise the TCR. The Revised Total Coliform Rule,
or RTCR (78 FR 10269, U.S. EPA, 2013e), takes effect in April 2016. The rule will replace the
MCLG and MCL for total coliforms with new standards for E. coli, which is a more specific
indicator of fecal contamination and potentially harmful pathogens. The revisions create a
treatment technique requirement for coliforms. When a water system exceeds a specified
frequency of total coliform occurrence or exceeds the E. coli MCL, it must conduct an
assessment to check for sanitary defects and take corrective action to address any problems that
are identified. (A sanitary defect is defined by the RTCR as a "defect that could provide a
pathway of entry for microbial contamination into the distribution system or that is indicative of
a failure or imminent failure of a barrier that is already in place."). The rule establishes
monitoring frequency based on compliance monitoring results and system performance. These
criteria in turn reward well-operated water systems with reduced monitoring regimens, and
increase monitoring for high-risk water systems and seasonal systems. As discussed in Section
2.1.1 of the main text, higher risks of bacterial contamination of drinking water may occur under
conditions of climate change due to higher water temperatures and increased frequency of sewer
and treatment plant overflows.
1.2. Disinfectant / disinfection by-products rules
In the U.S., chlorine and chloramines are most often used for treatment because they are
very effective disinfectants, and residual concentrations can be measured and maintained in the
water distribution system. Some utilities (primarily in the U.S. and Europe) use ozone and
chlorine dioxide as oxidizing agents for primary disinfection prior to the addition of chlorine or
chloramines for residual disinfection. While disinfectants are effective in controlling many
microorganisms, they can react with naturally occurring organic matter (NOM) and inorganic
matter in the treated and/or distributed water to form potentially harmful disinfection by-products
(DBFs). To minimize the formation of DBFs, EPA has promulgated regulations that specify
maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs) for chlorine, chloramines, and chlorine dioxide.
The Disinfectant/Disinfection By-Products Rules (DBPRs) updated the MCL for total
trihalomethanes (TTFDVIs) and established MCLs for five haloacetic acids (HAAS). In order to
meet these requirements, utilities may need to modify their disinfection process or remove
disinfection by-product (DBF) precursor materials from water prior to disinfection by applying
appropriate treatment techniques (Panguluri et al., 2006).
-90-
-------
As shown in the Part II, III and IV reports, climate change can induce significant changes
in NOM and total organic carbon (TOC) in source water. The case studies and modeling
analyses conclusively point to the risk of DBF regulation violations. For adaptation, a
framework for monitoring-modeling and engineering adaptation analysis has been established
and presented in this report.
Section 2.1.2 of the main text discussed the potential effects of sea level rise due to
climate change. Salt water intrusion in groundwater supplies and more extensive tidal impacts on
river supplies can result in higher concentrations of salts, such as bromide and iodide, in source
waters. Disinfection of such water can result in higher concentrations of disinfection byproducts,
including brominated and iodinated byproducts with harmful health effects.
Higher water temperatures under future climate scenarios could result in different NOM
reactivity to disinfectants and thus different DBF-formation potential. Under such circumstances,
current standards and treatment may not adequately address future risks to public health from
DBFs. This possibility is not assessed in this report, but is indicated in published studies (e.g.,
Towler et al., 2011; Whitehead et al., 2009).
1.3. Surface water treatment rules
The Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) (54 FR 27486; U.S. EPA, 1989b)
established standards for protection against waterborne pathogens, specifically including Giardia
lamblia, viruses, andLegionella. This major regulation was designed to protect customers of the
approximately 14,500 public water systems that use surface water, or groundwater under the
direct influence of surface water, from microbial contaminants. The SWTR specifies criteria for
meeting these standards, and criteria for avoiding filtration. Specifically, the SWTR requires all
impacted systems to disinfect their water (as described below). It also requires all such systems
to filter their water, unless (1) the system has an effective watershed control program; (2) it
complies with the TCR and MCL for TTHM; (3) it uses a good quality source water, meeting
standards for coliforms and turbidity (opaqueness); and (4) it meets stringent disinfection
conditions.
The SWTR and associated EPA guidance establish pertinent CT values for disinfection
inactivation ("C" stands for disinfectant concentration in milligrams/liter; "T" for time of
disinfectant contact with the water in minutes) that will enable a system to meet pathogen
reduction standards. CT values are provided for Giardia and enteric viruses by disinfectant type
(e.g., chlorine, chloramines, ozone, or chlorine dioxide), water pH, and water temperature. The
regulation also requires a system using surface water to maintain a minimum detectable
disinfectant residual at the entrance to the distribution system and a detectable disinfectant
residual for at least 95 percent of the sample sites throughout the distribution system. The rule
specifies the monitoring frequency and locations for determining these disinfection residuals and
(for unfiltered systems) testing source water quality.
The SWTR has been strengthened by three subsequent rules, the Interim Enhanced
SWTR (63 FR 69478, U.S. EPA, 1989b), Long-Term 1 Enhanced SWTR (67 FR 1812; U.S.
EPA, 2002b), and Long-Term 2 Enhanced SWTR (LT2ESWTR) (71 FR 6135; U.S. EPA,
2006a). These three rules collectively increase the stringency of turbidity standards, require
systems to monitor the turbidity levels leaving each individual filter, require periodic on-site
-91 -
-------
reviews of water sources, facilities, equipment, operation, and maintenance (sanitary surveys) by
the state, and require the system either to cover all finished drinking water storage facilities (e.g.,
reservoirs) or treat the water in those facilities, as well as adding other new requirements. The
primary purpose of these new requirements is to control Cryptosporidium. Another purpose is to
ensure that utilities do not compromise pathogen control while complying with DBPR
requirements. Under these three rules, a system must provide sufficient water treatment to reduce
Cryptosporidium by at least 99 percent (or 2-log reduction). However, because of a concern that
systems drawing water from a poor quality source might be exposing the public to a greater
pathogen risk than is reasonable even under conditions of 2-log reduction, the LT2ESWTR
specifies an average density of Cryptosporidium oocysts that triggers requirements to provide
additional Cryptosporidium treatment. The required level of additional treatment depends upon
the average Cryptosporidium density.
As noted in Section 2.1.1 of the main text, climate change can induce changes in surface
water quality including total organic carbon (TOC), NOM, turbidity, micronutrients (e.g.,
nitrogen and phosphorus), and potentially also biological contaminants such as microcystin.
Such changes may make it more challenging for systems to meet the requirements of the rules
described above. Flooding or drought also may affect water supply. For instance, flooding may
increase sediment loading into reservoirs which may increase turbidity levels and could
significantly reduce the useful life of a storage reservoir or may require sediment removal.
During a drought, pollutants accumulate on land surface and on other surfaces, such as pavement
and structures. These pollutants may be rapidly flushed as large loads of pollutants into surface
water bodies during high precipitation events that may follow the drought conditions (Walker et
al., 1991). Higher intensity precipitation events may overwhelm storage capacity, and, if there
are fewer precipitation events, the result may be reduced water supply. Reduction in snowpack or
drought also reduces water supply levels. These outcomes could trigger additional challenges,
such as lower reservoir levels.
1.4. Lead and Copper rules
Lead and copper contamination is introduced primarily through corrosion of plumbing
materials, including water system pipes, indoor plumbing, and faucets. Less commonly, it can be
found in source water. Given the potential introduction of contamination within the residence,
monitoring for these contaminants occurs at the customer's tap. If lead or copper levels exceed
specific thresholds, action must be taken to eliminate factors contributing to corrosion. The
source water will be tested to confirm the presence of lead and copper. The water system must
monitor for water quality parameters that affect corrosion rates, such as temperature, pH,
conductivity, and chemicals used during treatment. Remediation ranges from replacement of
plumbing fixtures to adding treatment, and, if these measures are unsuccessful, removal of the
lead service lines owned by the water system.
Climate change may affect compliance with the LCR in two ways. One is the effect of
temperature on pipe corrosion. The relationship is not entirely straightforward. Higher
temperatures increase the rate of the corrosion reaction, but the effect may be mitigated or
inhibited by other factors, which include biological activity, physical properties of the solution,
thermodynamic and physical properties of corrosion scale, chemical rates, and temperature
variability (McNeill and Edwards, 2002). Certain conditions related to pH, alkalinity, and
-92-
-------
dissolved inorganic carbonate levels in the water can cause lead to dissolve from pipe material
(U.S. EPA, 2014d). If the water temperature in the pipes increases, corrosion may increase lead
and/or copper levels. Secondly, treatment undertaken to mitigate climate change effects may
indirectly affect the lead and copper action levels. Treatment to address one public health risk
may have unintended consequences on the chemical or biological composition of the water and
contribute to other risks. Treatment installed to meet the DBPRs, for example, may affect
compliance with the LCR: e.g., the use of chloramine as a residual disinfectant can affect the
chemical properties of the water, which subsequently can increase lead and copper corrosion.
Likewise, changes in water treatment can increase concentrations of inorganic contaminants,
which can increase corrosivity, potentially causing higher levels of lead in the drinking water.
7.5. Ground water rule
The Ground Water Rule (GWR) (71 FR 65574; U.S. EPA, 2006b) was promulgated to
provide increased protection from microbial pathogens. It applies to all public water systems that
use groundwater not under the direct influence of surface water, or approximately 1,500 systems
(U.S. EPA, 2013b). (Systems that use groundwater under the direct influence of surface water
must instead comply with the SWTR.)
Under the GWR, states use a risk-based methodology to determine which groundwater
systems are vulnerable to fecal contamination and which may contain viruses or bacteria that are
harmful to humans. This determination may be made by a variety of means, including direct
monitoring of the source water (usually the well), periodic on-site sanitary surveys by a trained
inspector to identify significant deficiencies in key operational areas, and an examination of the
site's hydrology. Vulnerable water systems must take corrective action such as providing an
alternate water source, eliminating the contamination source, correcting all significant
deficiencies found during a sanitary survey, and/or providing treatment that reliably achieves at
least a 4-log (99.99 percent) virus removal or inactivation of viruses. Systems providing "4-log
treatment" must conduct regular compliance monitoring to ensure that the treatment technology
meets the standard. For water systems without this treatment, if a distribution system sample
collected under the TCR is total-coliform positive, the water system must conduct source water
monitoring within 24 hours, unless the state can determine that the positive sample was due to a
deficiency in the distribution system and not the source. Additional monitoring is required if the
source water samples indicate the presence of fecal contamination. A state also may require the
water system to take immediate corrective action. Under the rule, a system may use E. coli,
enterococci, or coliphage for source water monitoring; the rule approves specific analytical
methods for each of the three. The rule specifies when, where, and how often a system must
monitor; the frequency of required on-site sanitary surveys; minimum disinfectant requirements;
and other provisions.
1.6. Chemical phase rules
EPA established MCLs and MCLGs for removal of 65 chemical contaminants under
what are known as the Chemical Phase Rules. These regulations apply to three contaminant
groups: Inorganic Chemicals (lOCs), Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs), and Volatile Organic
Chemicals (VOCs). The Chemical Phase Rules provide public health protection through the
reduction of chronic risks from cancer, organ damage; and circulatory, nervous, and reproductive
-93-
-------
system disorders. They also help to reduce the occurrence of methemoglobinemia or "blue baby
syndrome" from ingestion of elevated levels of nitrate or nitrite (U.S. EPA, 2012d).
Changes in temperature and precipitation could lead to increased concentrations of
contaminants covered by these Rules: for instance, as noted in Section 2.3, there may be
circumstances where climate change may lead to increased nitrification of source water.
In addition, in cases where drought or source degradation require a water system to seek an
alternate water source, any new source must be evaluated to ensure that the system will be able
to deliver water that complies with the Chemical Phase Rules.
1.7. Contaminant candidate list and regulatory determinations
EPA is required by SDWA, as amended, to periodically publish a list of microbial and
chemical contaminants that are not regulated as drinking water contaminants but are known or
considered likely to occur in water systems and thus are candidates for regulation (74 FR 51850;
U.S. EPA, 2009c). The third and most recent Candidate Contaminant List (CCL 3) included 104
chemical contaminants and contaminant groups, as well as 12 microbial contaminants:
adenovirus, caliciviruses, enterovirus, Hepatitis A virus, Mycobacterium avium, Campylobacter
jejuni, Escherichia coli (0157), Helicobacterpylori, Legionellapneumophila, Naegleriafowleri,
Salmonella enterica, and Shigella sonnei (74 FR 51850; U.S. EPA, 2009c). In May 2012, EPA
requested nominations of chemical and microbial contaminants for possible inclusion on the next
iteration of the list, CCL 4 (77 FR 27057; U.S. EPA, 2012e).
EPA is also required by SDWA, as amended, to make regulatory determinations (as to
whether or not regulation is warranted, and if so to begin developing the regulation) for at least
five contaminants from each list. Regulatory determinations for select contaminants from CCL 3
are expected to be published in the 2014-2015 timeframe. In determining whether to regulate a
contaminant, EPA evaluates the threat it poses to public health (including the health of sensitive
subpopulations such as children, the elderly, and immunocompromised) and its known or likely
occurrence in drinking water or source water. If a national regulation of a contaminant is not
warranted, EPA may choose to take some other action, such as issuing guidance to assist states in
setting standards to address local contamination concerns. If circumstances warrant, EPA does
not need to wait for a new CCL cycle to begin to evaluate and initiate regulation on an emerging
contaminant; regulations can be promulgated "off-cycle." The CCL and Regulatory
Determinations programs provide a flexible mechanism to identify and respond to emerging
threats to drinking water quality as climatic conditions change over time.
1.8. Underground injection control
The capture and injection of CO2 produced by human activities for storage via long-term
geologic sequestration is one of a portfolio of options that are expected to reduce CO2 emissions
to the atmosphere from large stationary sources of GHG emissions. Geologic sequestration that
may occur from future carbon pollution stationary-source standards under the authority of the
C AA must be performed in a manner that safeguards underground sources of drinking water as
required by the SDWA. In November 2010, EPA finalized "Federal Requirements Under the
Underground Injection Control for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells" (U.S. EPA,
2011) under the authority of SDWA's Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. These
requirements, also known as the Class VI Rule, are designed to protect underground sources of
-94-
-------
drinking water from CCh-injection related activities. The Class VI Rule builds on existing UIC
Program requirements, with extensive tailored requirements that address carbon dioxide injection
for long-term storage to ensure that wells used for geologic sequestration are appropriately sited,
constructed, tested, monitored, funded, and closed. The Rule also affords owners or operators the
injection depth flexibility to address injection in various geologic settings in the U.S. in which
geologic sequestration may occur, including very deep formations and oil and gas fields that are
transitioned for use as CO2 storage sites.
UIC program also regulates injection of production water, reclaimed water, or storm
water into underground formation for storage and later retrieval. The practice, known as aquifer
storage and recovery (ASR), can be used to reduce the water supply vulnerability due to climate-
induced water availability problem and strong seasonable variations. However, ASR is known to
associate with groundwater quality concerns. The holding aquifer can be contaminated from
micro-contaminants from injected water, such as personal care products, and from remobilization
of indigenous contaminants (e.g., As) in the formation materials.
2. Clean Water Act and Regulations
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the principal law governing the physical, chemical, and
biological condition of waters of the United States (33 U.S.C. Section 1251(a); CWA Section
101(a)). Enacted in 1948 as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the CWA was revised by
amendments in 1972. The 1972 amendments created a framework for regulating pollutant
discharge to the nation's waters for implementation at federal and state level. Although
additional amendments enacted in 1977, 1981, and 1987 modified some provisions, the basic
elements of the 1972 amendments remain in effect today.
The overall goal of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the waters of the United States. A broad set of regulatory, financial, and
technical assistance programs have been established to meet this goal and other CWA mandates.
Key federal and state water quality based pollution control programs mandated by the CWA
include:
• Water quality standards (WQS) programs that establish acceptable surface water conditions
and goals;
• Monitoring and assessment programs that inventory and report on the condition of surface
waters and attainment of water quality standards;
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit programs that regulate
pollutant discharges from point sources such as wastewater outfalls and stormwater runoff;
• Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) programs that maintain lists of impaired waters and
develop pollutant budgets (i.e., TMDLs) for impaired waters;
• Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) programs that finance water infrastructure
projects that improve water quality; and
• Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Programs fund projects that reduce or prevent
polluted runoff from nonpoint sources such agricultural runoff.
-95-
-------
The primary relevance of the CWA to climate change is the regulatory and non-
regulatory mechanisms it offers for managing climate change impacts to surface waters rather
than climate change mitigation (i.e., reduction of GHG emissions) (Craig, 2010). Recognizing
the fundamental link between climate and aquatic ecosystem conditions, EPA and states have
already begun to incorporate climate change considerations in CWA program planning and
implementation (U.S. EPA, 2012f). This section outlines key CWA sections that relate to water
infrastructure and their relevance to climate change adaptation.
2.1. Water quality standards
Section 303(c) of the CWA sets forth requirements for establishing WQS for U.S. waters.
In general, a WQS must specify:
• The designated uses of a water body (e.g., public water supply, recreation, wildlife
protection/propagation, etc.);
• The water quality criteria necessary to protect those designated uses (i.e., numeric standards
or narrative statements describing desired chemical, physical, or biological conditions); and
• Anti-degradation provisions that outline policies for protecting existing uses and preventing
degradation when conditions are better than minimum criteria.
States are assigned primary responsibility for WQS development with oversight from
EPA. The standards established by a state serve as a foundation for other water quality
management strategies and decisions, including those affecting stormwater and wastewater
operations such as NPDES permitting and TMDL development.
WQS can be used to address climate change impacts in several ways. New WQS may be
established as climate-driven pollutant loading issues emerge and existing WQS can be updated
to reflect current climate change concepts and data. WQS revisions may include updates to each
of the three WQS components (designated uses, numeric/narrative criteria, anti-degradation
provisions). For example, existing water temperature criteria may be updated to reflect actual
and expected climate-driven shifts in stream thermal regimes. In addition, EPA has pointed to
anti-degradation policy updates as a means to protect designated uses that are particularly
susceptible to climate change (U.S. EPA, 2012f). New and revised WQS can have cascading
effects on stormwater and wastewater dischargers, including modifications to NPDES permits,
discussed further in the following section.
2.2. NPDES permitting
CWA Section 402 established the NPDES permit program to regulate pollutant
discharges to surface waters from point sources, defined as any discrete conveyance of pollutants
such as pipes, ditches, or tunnels. NPDES programs are administered by authorized states or
EPA and issue permits that specify allowable pollutant quantities, discharge monitoring
requirements, and other provisions that must be adhered to by the permittee. NPDES permits are
used to manage pollution from three major wastewater and stormwater system types:
• Separate sanitary sewer systems that collect and treat domestic sewage;
• Municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) that collect and discharge stormwater from
roads, sidewalks, parking lots, etc.; and
-96-
-------
• Combined sewer systems that collect and treat both domestic sewage and stormwater.
NPDES permits for separate sanitary sewer and combined sewer systems typically
include provisions to report, minimize, and prevent SSOs and CSOs. SSOs and CSOs can occur
during periods of heavy rainfall, resulting in discharge of raw sewage to surface waters and
degraded water body health. Regions projected to receive more frequent and intense storm events
are at-risk for increased SSO or CSO discharges. NPDES permitting offers a regulatory means
for controlling the SSO and CSO events.
In 2012, the NPDES Permit Writers'Manual (U.S. EPA, 2010c) was updated with
passages to call attention to climate change considerations when setting effluent limitations for
NPDES permits. These revisions reflect a shift from the use of historic data alone to
incorporating projected future conditions as well. For example, permit writers often use a critical
low flow magnitude to calculate effluent limits. Critical flows have traditionally been based on
historic flow data. Because past observations may not be reflective of future conditions, permit
writers will now likely consider climate change projections more regularly when calculating
critical flows. NPDES permits must also incorporate any new or revised WQS implemented in
response to climate change. For example, if water temperature criteria are established for a
stream to mitigate the effects of climate-driven temperature changes on stream biota, these
criteria will be used by permit writers when determining thermal limits for dischargers.
2.3. TMDL development
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to develop a list of impaired waters (those
waters not meeting applicable water quality standards) and to develop one or more TMDLs for
each impaired water body. A TMDL is the maximum quantity of a pollutant that a water body
can receive while still meeting water quality standards. A TMDL also allocates that pollutant
load between pollutant sources, with point sources receiving a wasteload allocation (WLA) and
nonpoint sources receiving a load allocation (LA). The WLAs established by a TMDL can
require revisions to discharge limits and other provisions in NPDES permits for wastewater and
stormwater systems.
Climate change has the potential to increase the number of water body impairments and
TMDLs required due to increased stress placed on aquatic ecosystems and/or as a result of
modified WQS. Future climate change can also be explicitly considered as part of the TMDL
development process. TMDLs are typically calculated using historic data on stream/river flows,
pollutant loads, and ecological health. Climate change can be integrated into TMDL calculations
by evaluating pollutant loads and impacts under a range of projected climatic shifts. The use of
climate change projections may result in WLAs and LAs that differ from those calculated if
static climate conditions were assumed. Furthermore, climate change may be factored into
decisions on the specific water quality target used to determine the TMDL. Although water
quality targets are usually equivalent to criteria set forth in water quality standards, alternative
targets may be used where water quality standards have not been updated to reflect climate
change impacts. Finally, because TMDLs follow an adaptive management approach, existing
TMDLs may be revisited and revised to incorporate actual and expected climate change data.
-97-
-------
2.4. CWSRF and NFS program funding
The 1987 CWA amendments introduced two important sources for financing clean water
projects, the CWSRF program and the Section 319 Nonpoint Source (NFS) program. The
CWSRF program provides federal dollars to states for administering low-cost loans and grants to
a wide range of water quality improvement projects, including wastewater and stormwater
infrastructure upgrades. Section 319 NFS program funds are allocated to state grant programs
that focus exclusively on nonpoint source pollution control projects, such as implementation of
Best Management Practices (BMPs).
The CWSRF and Section 319 NFS program both have the potential to serve as key
funding sources for projects that increase the resiliency of wastewater and stormwater
infrastructure to climate change. For example, the CWSRF can fund infrastructure upgrades to
prevent SSOs or CSO during large rainfall events. The CWSRF also sets aside a portion of funds
for green infrastructure projects in the Green Project Reserve (GPR). The GPR and Section 319
grants can fund stormwater BMPs that prevent runoff from entering sewer systems such as
bioretention basins, constructed wetlands, and pervious pavement.
3. Clean Air Act
A comprehensive response to climate change includes both adaptation and mitigation.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has enacted regulatory actions to control air pollutant emissions
including GHG. This section provides an overview of EPA's regulatory efforts that also have
implications for water resources management and water infrastructure adaptations. A complete
analysis of the impact of regulatory programs on water resources from the Nation's energy
productions is provided in an EPA companion report (EPA, 2014o).
3.1. Greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act
On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed an Endangerment Finding and a
Cause or Contribute Finding for GHG under section 202(a) of the CAA (U.S. EPA, 2009a). Six
well-mixed GHGs in the atmosphere were found to threaten public health and welfare.
Additionally, emissions of these gases from new motor vehicles were found to contribute to
GHG pollution (which, again, threatens public health and welfare).
In response to the fiscal year (FY) 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (U.S.
Congress, 2007), EPA established the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) (U.S. EPA,
2009b), which requires reporting of GHG data and other relevant information from fossil fuel
suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, direct GHG emitters, and manufacturers of heavy-duty and
off-road vehicles and engines. The regulations do not require control of GHG. Rather, the
purpose of the regulations was to collect accurate and timely GHG data to inform future policy
decisions. Entities emitting 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHGs are required to submit
annual reports to EPA. GHG emissions reporting under GHGRP began to phase in with the 2010
reporting year. Currently, 41 source categories are required to report GHG emissions under
GHGRP. In January 2012, EPA made the first year of GHGRP reporting data available to the
public through its interactive Data Publication Tool, called Facility Level Information on
GreenHouse gases Tool (FLIGHT) (U.S. EPA, 2012a). EPA will continue to update the tool and
release additional data each reporting year.
-98-
-------
3.2. Transportation and mobile source greenhouse gas regulations
In 2010, EPA established the first regulatory limits for GHG emissions in the U.S. as part
of a joint regulatory effort between EPA and U.S. Department of Transportation's National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The regulation established GHG emissions
standards and corporate average fuel economy standards for model year 2012 through 2016
passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles (U.S. EPA, 2010a). The
EPA GHG standards require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions
level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide (CCh) per mile in model year 2016. This standard would be
equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if the automotive industry were to meet this CO2 level
exclusively through fuel economy improvements. In 2012, EPA extended this program to the
2017 through 2025 model years (U.S. EPA, 2012b). The final standards are projected to result in
an average industry fleet-wide level of 163 grams/mile of carbon dioxide (CCh) in model year
2025, which would be equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if achieved exclusively through
fuel economy improvements.
In 2011, EPA and NHTSA established a first-ever program to reduce GHG emissions and
improve the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and buses in the U.S. (U.S. EPA, 2011). The
regulations included CO2 emissions standards for combination tractors (semi-trucks), vocational
vehicles (trucks and buses), heavy-duty pickup trucks, and vans.
3.3. Stationary source greenhouse gas regulations
EPA has also published a set of regulations under the CAA for stationary source GHG
mitigation. In 2010, EPA issued the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule to address GHG emissions
from stationary sources under CAA permitting programs (U.S. EPA, 2010b). These regulations
set thresholds for GHG emissions that define when permits under the New Source Review,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), and Title V Operating Permit programs are
required for new and existing industrial facilities. This final rule "tailors" the requirements of
these CAA permitting programs to limit which facilities will be required to obtain PSD and title
V permits. Facilities responsible for nearly 70 percent of the national GHG emissions from
stationary sources will be subject to permitting requirements under this rule. This includes the
nation's largest stationary GHG emitters—electric power plants, refineries, and cement
production facilities. These regulations do not cover emissions from small farms, restaurants, and
all but the very largest commercial facilities.
In 2012, EPA proposed the Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants (U.S. EPA,
2012c), which set national limits on the amount of CO2 that could be emitted from new power
plants. In early 2014, EPA withdrew the proposed regulations (U.S. EPA, 2014a) and issued a
new proposal to establish national CO2 emission standards (U.S. EPA, 2014b). If adopted, this
program will establish new national limits on the amount of carbon pollution emitted by future
fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units (EGUs). For purposes of this rule, fossil fuel-
fired EGUs include utility boilers, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) units and
certain natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbine EGUs that generate electricity for sale and
are larger than 25 megawatts (MW). Under this program, new natural-gas-fired combustion
turbines would need to meet an output-based standard of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-
hour (Ib CO2/MWh gross) for large plants (>850 mmBTU/hr) or 1,100 Ib CO2/MWh-gross for
smaller plants (<850 mmBtu/hr). Fossil fuel-fired utility boilers and IGCC units would need to
-99-
-------
meet an output-based standard of 1,100 Ib CCh/MWh-gross over a 12-operating month period, or
an option to meet a standard of 1,000-1,050 Ib CCh/MWh-gross over 7-year period. The optional
standard with a 7-year compliance period allows sources to phase in the use of partial carbon
capture and sequestration (CCS). The owner/operator can then use some or all of the initial 7-
year compliance period to optimize the combined sewer system (CSS).
Nearly all (95 percent) of the natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) units built since 2005
are at or below 1,000 Ib CCh/MWh-gross, so it is anticipated that new NGCC units would be
able to meet the proposed standards without additional CO2 emission controls. New power plants
that are designed to use coal or petroleum coke would need to incorporate technology such as
CSS with geological storage to reduce CO2 emissions sufficiently to meet the proposed
standards.
In June 2014, EPA also proposed new regulations to reduce carbon pollution from
existing power plants by 30 percent by 2030 when compared to 2005 carbon emissions (U.S.
EPA, 2014c). The regulation would establish state goals to reduce the carbon intensity of the
covered fossil-fuel fired power plants in any given state. EPA identified four measures available
to significantly reduce carbon intensity from the power sector:
• Improving efficiency at existing coal-fired power plants
• Increasing utilization of existing natural gas fired power plants
• Expanding the use of wind, solar, or other low- or zero-emitting alternatives, and
• Increasing energy efficiency in homes and businesses.
By looking at the mix of power sources and the ability of each state to take advantage of
any of the four carbon pollution reduction measures, EPA calculated goals for each state. The
proposed state goals were based upon a consistent national formula and calculated using specific
information about the state's or its region's individual power profile. The result of the equation is
the state goal. Each state goal is a rate - a pollution-to-power ratio - for the future carbon
intensity of covered existing fossil-fuel-fired power plants in that state. States can meet their goal
using any measures available to them—they do not have to use all the measures EPA identified,
and they can use other approaches that will work to bring down the carbon intensity rate. The
proposed regulations also include regulatory flexibility that would allow states to work
individually to develop plans to reduce carbon-intensity of power generation or to collaborate
with other states to develop multi-state plans.
3.4. Water resources impacts from energy and air-related programs
A recent EPA report (EPA, 2014o) describes the impact of traditional and alternative
energy production on water resources in the context of air and fuel programs. The intensity of
water use via consumptive water loss for the major forms of thermoelectric generation in the
U.S. were assessed from detailed engineering analyses. Note that the lower values within the
ranges for nuclear and coal systems represent older single-pass (i.e., no cooling tower with direct
discharge of cooling water) systems that are being phased out of use due to EPA regulations
limiting water discharge temperatures. With respect to general trends, transitioning electric
generation from coal-fired power plants to plants with IGCC/CCh-capture represents an
opportunity to reduce water use intensity by approximately 50 percent per plant that is
-100-
-------
transitioned. Transitioning from coal or natural gas-fired boilers (Rankine cycle) to NGCC
represents an opportunity to reduce water intensity by approximately 75 percent per plant that is
transitioned (EPA, 2014o). In these areas, reducing the carbon intensity of electric power
generation is expected to provide significant opportunities to simultaneously reduce water use.
Reductions in water use would include efficiency improvements, shifting to increased use of
renewable or zero-carbon-emission alternatives, and shifting to types of thermoelectric
generation that offer both reduced carbon-intensity and reduced water consumption.
4. References11
Craig, R. K., (2010). Stationarity is dead - Long live transformation: Five principles for climate
change adaptation law. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 34:9-73.
McNeill, L.S., M. Edwards, (2002). The importance of temperature in assessing iron pipe
corrosion in water distribution systems. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment.
77(3):229-42.
Panguluri, S., W. M. Grayman, and R. M. Clark., (2006). Distribution system water quality
report: a guide to the assessment and management of drinking water quality in
distribution systems. EPA Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
Towler, E., B. Raucher, B. Rajagopalan, A. Rodriguez, D. Yates, andR.S. Summers, (2011)
Incorporating climate change uncertainty in a cost assessment for a new municipal source
water. J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage, 138(5), 396-402.
U.S. Congress, (2007). FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law 110-16, Dec. 26,
2007.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), (1989a). Drinking water; national primary
drinking water regulations; total coliforms (including fecal coliforms and E. coli).
Federal Register. 54(124), 27544.
U.S. EPA, (1989b). Drinking water; national primary drinking water regulations; filtration
disinfection; turbidity, Giardi lamblia, viruses, Legionella, and heterotrophic bacteria.
Federal Register. 54(124), 27486.
U.S. EPA, (2002a). The Clean water and drinking water infrastructure gap analysis. EPA-816-R-
02-020. Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, (2002b). National primary drinking water regulations: Long term 1 enhanced surface
water treatment rule. Federal Register. 67(9), 1812.
U.S. EPA, (2006a). National primary drinking water regulations: Long term 2 enhanced surface
water treatment rule. Federal Register. 71(3), 654.
11 Follow reference sequences in Section 5.0 of the main text
-101 -
-------
U.S. EPA, (2006b). National primary drinking water regulations: Ground water rule. Federal
Register. 71(216), 65574.
U.S. EPA, (2008a). Clean watersheds needs survey 2008 - Report to Congress. EPA-832-R-10-
002. Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, (2008b). National water program strategy: response to climate change. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA 800-R-08-001. Washington, DC
20460. Assessed at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/climatechange/2012-National-Water-
Program- Strategy. cfm
U.S. EPA, (2009a). 2006 community water system survey, February 2009, EPA 815-R-09-001,
Washington, DC. Assessed at
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/pws/upload/cwssreportvolumeI2006.pdf
U.S. EPA, (2009b). Mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases. Federal Register. 74(209), 56260
-56519.
U.S. EPA, (2009c). Drinking water contaminant candidate list 3—Final. Federal Register. Vol.
74 FR, No. 194, p. 51850, October 8, 2009.
U.S. EPA. (2009d). Proceedings of the first national expert and stakeholder workshop on water
infrastructure sustainability and adaptation to climate change. EPA 600/R-09/OJO.
US EPA, (2010a). Light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards and corporate average
fuel economy standards; Final rule. Federal Register. 75(88), 25324.
U.S. EPA, (201 Ob). Prevention of significant deterioration and Title V greenhouse gas tailoring
rule. Federal Register. 75(106), 31514.
U.S. EPA, (2010c). NPDES permit writers' manual. EPA-833-K-10-001. Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, (2011). Announcement of federal underground injection control (UIC) Class VI
program for carbon dioxide (CO2) geologic sequestration (GS) wells. Federal Register.
76(179). 56982.
U.S. EPA, (2012a). Facility level information on greenhouse gases tool. Accessed at
http ://ghgdata. epa.gov/ghgp/main. do.
U.S. EPA, (2012b). 2017 and later model year light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and
corporate average fuel economy standards; final rule. Federal Register. 77(199), 62624.
U.S. EPA, (2012c). Standards of performance for greenhouse gas emissions for new stationary
sources: Electric utility generating units. Federal Register. 77(72), 22392.
U.S. EPA, (2012d). Basic information on the chemical contaminant rules. Accessed at
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/chemicalcontaminantrules/basicinformation
.cfm.
U.S. EPA, (2012e). Request for nominations of drinking water contaminants for the fourth
contaminant candidate list. Federal Register. 77(89), 27057.
U.S. EPA, (2012f). National water program 2012 strategy: Response to climate change, EPA-
850-K-12-004, Washington, DC 20460.
-102-
-------
U.S. EPA, (2013a). Drinking water infrastructure needs survey and assessment: Fifth report to
Congress. Office of Water, EPA 816-R-13-006. 70 pp.
U.S. EPA, (2013b). Fiscal year 2011 drinking water and ground water statistics. EPA 816-R-13-
003.
U.S. EPA, (2013c). Regulations and rules for small water systems. Accessed at
http ://www. epa. gov/nrmrl/wswrd/dw/small system s/regul ati ons.html.
U.S. EPA, (2013d). 2012 Highlights of progress: Responses to climate change by the national
water program. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA 850-R-13-
001, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, (2013e). National primary drinking water regulations: Revisions to the total coliform
rule. Federal Register. 78(30), 10270.
U.S. EPA, (2013f). Climate ready estuaries. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/cre/index.cfm. Updated: July 2014.
U.S. EPA, (2013g). Green infrastructure strategic agenda 2013. Office of Water: Washington,
DC.
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/upload/2013_GI_FINAL_Agenda_
101713.pdf
U.S. EPA, (2014a). Withdrawal of proposed standards of performance for greenhouse gas
emissions from new stationary sources: Electric utility generating units. Federal Register.
79(5), 1352.
U.S. EPA, (2014b). Standards of performance for greenhouse gas emissions from new stationary
sources: Electric utility generating units; proposed rule. Federal Register. 79(5), 1430.
U.S. EPA, (2014c). Carbon pollution emission guidelines for existing stationary sources: Electric
utility generating units; proposed rule. Federal Register. 79(117), 34830.
U.S. EPA, (2014d). Information about chloramine in drinking water. Accessed at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/chloramine/pdfs/chloramine2.pdf
U.S. EPA, (2014o). Water resources impacts from traditional and alternative energy productions
in the United States. EPA 600/R-14/272. 25 Ip.
Walker, W.R., M.S. Hrezo, and CJ. Haley. (1991). Management of Water Resources for
Drought Condition. National Water Summary 1988-89—Hydrologic Events and Floods
and Droughts. Paulson, R.W., Chase, E.B., Roberts, R.S., and Moody, D.W. (eds.).
United States Geological Survey. Water-Supply Paper 2375.
Whitehead, P. G., R.L. Wilby, R.W. Battarbee, M. Kernan, and A. J. Wade, (2009). A review of
the potential impacts of climate change on surface water quality. Hydrological Sciences.
54(1):101-123.
-103-
-------
Appendix I-B
Results or ranking matrix distributed to utility directors
at 2008 Five Cities Plus Conference
Background: Executive directors (or a designee) for wastewater utilities at six municipalities in the
Midwest attended the Five Cities Plus Conference in Columbus Ohio on June 6, 2008 and completed the
matrix ranking exercise. The six participants represented the Cities of Cincinnati, Columbus, Fort
Wright, Indianapolis, Louisville and St. Louis.
Results: Nine of 20 issues received above-average scores and are shaded below. The extreme high and
low rankings are also identified. With a total of 28 points (maximum possible = 30), the prospect of
declining state or federal aid emerged as the single highest priority concern of these six regional
wastewater utilities. Conversely, tied with 8 points each (minimum possible = 6), the two lowest priority
concerns of these six regional wastewater utilities were: [i] prospect of privatization and [ii] regional
conflicts over water use.
Specific Issue Affecting Your WW
Utility Operation Over Next 50 Years
[01] Aging water system infrastructure
[02] Climate change
[03] CSOs and/or SSOs
[04] Decline in local revenue stream
[05] Decline in state or federal aid
[06] Emergency plans for storms/hurricane
[07] Endangered species
[08] Inadequate treatment capacity
[09] Increased cost of energy
[10] Infiltration and Inflow (M)
[11] Lack of skilled work force
[12] Lack of asset management plan
[13] Prospect of privatization
[14] Nutrients and Pharmaceuticals
[15] Outdated technology/equipment
[16] Reduced flow in receiving water body
Line
Score
27
17
27
26
28
16
11
16
26
23
23
19
8
24
18
13
Very
Serious
[5]
•/SSS
•/SSS
•/SS
•/SSS
•ss
•ss
s
s
s
[4]
S
S
S
SS
•/S
•/
•/
•ss
•ssss
•/
sss
s
•/sss
•/s
•/
Somewhat
Serious
[3]
S
•/SS
S
S
•ss
•/
•sss
ss
ss
s
•/s
•/
[2]
SS
•sss
•ssss
ss
ss
•/s
•ss
Not
Serious
[1]
•SSSS
•/SSS
•SS
- 104-
-------
[17] Regional conflicts over water use
[18] Stringent government regulations
[19] Vulnerability to cyber attacks
[20] Vulnerability to physical attacks
Total Column Tally Count
Total Column Score
8
22
14
15
120
381
•/
23
115
•SSS
30
120
S
•/
•SSS
•/SSS
29
87
•/
•SS
S
21
42
SSSSS
•/
S
17
17
Notes: [1] The average line score for all 20 issues is (381)/(20) = 19.05
[2] Issues that scored above average (i.e., line score > 19.05) are highlighted above.
[3] A complete list of ranked results is presented in Table 4.5
[4] Issue #21 "Other" received no votes and was eliminated from further consideration.
-105-
-------
Appendix I-C
One-line questionnaire for drinking water industry
WINS: Water Infrastructure National Survey (AMWA-Drinking Water)
1. Motivation
This survey is about the Nation's DRINKING WATER infrastructure.
A printed version of this survey accompanied the email with the hot link to this site.
After reviewing the printed version, the on-line version can be completed in 30 minutes
The University of Qncinnati, with support from USEPA's Office of Research and Development, is conducting a
national assessment to identify and analyze the most important factors that may affect the performance of public
and private water and wastewater systems in the US over the next SO years. This information will be used, in part,
ta help USEPA define and prioritize directions for innovative research on sustainable urban water infrastructure.
Factors affecting your drinking water infrastrucbjre might include, among other things, climate change, population
growth, economic pressures, funding shortfalls, institutional changes and regulatory requirements.
We believe the best way to identify these and other factors is with feedback from the members of the Association
of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) who deal with these issues every day.
Please take a moment to complete this ANONYMOUS survey to help us understand which issues are most important
and which deserve research priority as you develop plans for renovating, restoring, replacing and expanding your
water resources infrastructure in the years ahead.
"Exact" answers are not required- in many cases an order-of-magnrtude approximation is acceptable. Some
questions can be left blank, if you choose.
You can save your responses and return to the survey at a later time. The survey will remain open until August 31,
2DOfl.
Be assured that there is no way to trace any particular response back to any participating utility. Pooled results
from this anonymous survey will be shared with the AMWA executive office by October 1, 2008.
[Last revision on Jury 8, 2008]
++ +++ +++•*•+ +++++++•*••*•+++*+++ +++ *+ «•+ *+ *++ +++ *++++*+ •*++•*•++ ++
2. Utility Profile
1. What is the approximate size of your service area (sq mi)?
a ta id 10 ta iaa laa ta ijaaa i.aao ta lo.oaa
o o o o
o o o o
2. Approximately, how many meter connections do you have in 2008?
Number of Connections
3. Approximately, how many people do you serve in 2008?
Number af People
o
o
Page 1
-106-
-------
WINS: Water Infrastructure National Survey (AMWA-Drinking Water)
4. Approximately, what percentage growth in the number of "people served" do you
expect in the next 20 years?
ten man 0 Ota ID ID to SO 50 to 100 9 neater than 100
n O O O O O
5. Approximately, what percentage of your service population is wholesale?
011120 20* to 40 401-taCO Contain SOi- ta MO
O O O O O
O O O O O
6. How many people do you employ?
6 to 9 iota 99
O O
O O
100 ta 499
O
O
-, JIIJH
7. What is your system-wide AVERAGE DAILY flow (MGD)?
500 ta 999
O
O
er i.aaa
O
O
In Summer 2004
In Summer 20231
in Winter 2008
in Winter 2029
8. What is your system-wide MAXIMUM DAILY flow (MGD)?
In Summer 2QQS
In Summer 2323
In Winter 200fl
in Winter 2028
9. What is your primary source of water?
surface water ground water
"«« O O
O O
If *at»ier" please spcaiy
O
O
O
O
O
O
1O. Approximately, what is the average annual temperature (F) in your region?
lexxUian40 40 to SO SO to SO 60 ta 70 greater than 70
Av—geTempW O O O O O
11. Approximately, what is the average annual precipitation (inches) in your region?
tan Uian 10 10 to 2j 25 to 40 40 to SS greater than 55
Aver.,, fr.^ On) O O O O O
3, Current Infrastructure and Operation (Excluding Wholesale Business)
1. How many water treatment plants do you operate?
123
Number
-------
WINS: Water Infrastructure National Survey (AMWA-Drinking Water)
2. What is the total design capacity of all the treatment plants in your drinking water
system (MGD)?
3. What types of drinking water treatment unit processes do you utilize? (Check all
that apply)
^ Bank F*bratHn
\~\ Contact Tant
Oiatamaceaus Eartfi
I Fbcculatjan
Granular Activated Carton (GAC)
Qzane Chamber
| |
Rapid Hbi
U StHlng Basin
_] Slaw Sand FKraoo
Q UV OHnfedBon
Ottiv (please specify)
-I
4. How many pumping stations do you have in your drinking water distribution
system?
5. How many storage tanks for finished water do you have in your drinking water
distribution system?
6. What is the total capacity of all storage tanks for finished water in your distribution
system (MG)?
7. Approximately, how many miles of pipe do you have in your drinking water
system?
Page 3
-108-
-------
WINS: Water Infrastructure National Survey (AMWA-Drinking Water)
8. Approximately, what percentage of the miles of pipe in your water distribution
system is constructed with the following materials (numbers should total to 100):
Asaestos Clement
Cast Iran
Ducttte Iron
Concrete
Steel
Palyvnyl Ghtandr (PUC)
High CaiHty Patyettiylcne
(KEF)
OUier
9. Considering all the miles of pipe in your water distribution system, approximately
what percentage is greater than 5O years old?
a to 15 16to30 31to« 46tx>60 greater thin 60
*«- -«• o o o o o
10. Considering all the miles of pipe in your water distribution system, what is the
approximate annual breakage rate (breaks per mile per year)?
lecithin d. 1 0.1 to 0.25 a.25 ta a. 5 O.Stol.O greater than 1.0
.«.»„ O O O O O
11. Considering all the miles of pipe in your water distribution system, approximately
what percentage is replaced each year?
a. a to a. 5 O.Slal.O 1.0 to 1.5 l.!to2.G greater ttian 2.0
— •• O O O O O
12. Approximately what percentage of your finished water is unaccounted for?
Cl to 5 Slold 10 ta IS IS In 20 greater than 20
*«— •• O O O O O
13. This question pertains to finished water after it has been drawn from the
distribution system for some initial use. Approximately, what percentage of this
"grey" water is subsequently reclaimed and reused in your service area?
0 a.lttj 5 to 10 10 to 20 aver 20
O O O O O
o o o o o
14. On a scale of 1 (poor condition; frequent problems) to 10 (excellent condition; no
problems), indicate the average overall system- wide condition and performance of
your pumping stations:
1 :- -o-: 1 3 4 $ ( a 9
hnMteH.« ooooooooo
IT you assigned a scare < IQj, please indicate Che nature atttie proQ^eml i) .
Page 4
m 20tB
tn 2Q2S
10
-109-
-------
WINS: Water Infrastructure National Survey (AMWA-Drinking Water)
15. On a scale of 1 (poor condition; frequent problems) to 10 (excellent condition; no
problems), indicate the average overall system-wide condition and performance of
your water distribution system (pipe lines only):
1 (poor) 23456799
»__.._ ooooooooo l"cT'
If va j assigned a scare < 10, please indicate Hie nature at tfie prati»em(£).
16. On a scale of 1 (poor condition; frequent problems) to 10 (excellent condition; no
problems), indicate the average overall system-wide condition and performance of
your water storage tanks:
ia
Storage Tanks
{exec Bent)
oooooooooo
If you assigned a scare < 10,, please mdKate ttie nature of the nraliJemfs),
I
17. On a scale of 1 (poor condition; frequent problems) to 10 (excellent condition; no
problems), indicate the average overall system-wide condition and performance of
your drinking water treatment plants:
10
1 (paor) 23456739
l^*-™-* ooooooooo l~or"
If ya j assigned a scare •*. 13, please indicate ttie nature af ttie -"o ::T; -;.
I
18. Excluding "routine" pipe repairs, indicate the approximate year of the last major
upgrade to your facilities (e.g., WTP, storage tank, major transmission line, etc)
pnor M 199Q 199Q to 1994 1995 la 1999 2000 ta 2004 : T:.= 2005
—- O O O O O
19. Have you requested VOLUNTARY water conservation in the past 1O years?
O"°
f J Unsoiire
2O. Have you imposed MANDATORY water conservation in the past 10 years?
Page 5
-110-
-------
WINS: Water Infrastructure National Survey (AMWA-Drinking Water)
21. Have you issued a boil water directive in the past 10
22. Are you using a formal asset management program in your drinking water
treatment, storage and distribution operations?
o«
4. Agents of Change
1. Listed below are six very general categories for issues that may affect the
operation of your utility and perhaps require changes in your drinking water
infrastructure over the next 40 years. These changes might include upgrades,
expansions, replacements, repairs, rehabilitation or possibly downsizing and
decommissioning. Please rank the six categories in their relative order of importance
according to their anticipated impact on the operation of your infrastructure.
Climate Change
Economic Constramts
Environmental Regs
InsabjUanal Change
Lade af Federal Funds
Population Growth
1 (mast
Important)
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
1. (least
important}
O
o
o
o
o
o
2. Please use this space to elaborate on your rankings and/or to add other factors
not mentioned in Question 1. Additional space for other comments is included at the
end of this survey.
Page 6
-111 -
-------
3. Listed below are ten specific problems which may adversely affect the
of your drinking water utility over the next 50 years. Please rank the ten
according to the seriousness of their anticipated impact on the operation
sustain ability of your drinking water utility.
WINS: Water Infrastructure National Survey (AMWA-Drinking Water)
operation
problems
and
ID (least
senous)
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
Aging Water System
In ir structure
Dedtne In Revenue
Stream
Impaired Source Water
Quality
Inadequate Treatment
Caoacrty
Increased Cast of Energy
Lack at Skilled Wart
Farce
Outdated Treatment
Tectinalagy
Reduced Source Water
Supply
Stringent Government
RjegutBUans
Vulnerable la Cyber and
RiysKal Attacks
1 (mast 2
" T: ' / J ';
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
4. Please use the space below to elaborate on your rankings and/or to add other
factors not mentioned in Question 3. Additional space for other comments is included
at the end of this survey.
5. Which scenario most closely fits your drinking water utility and its operation over
the next 40 years ("size" refers to customer base, annual revenue, area! coverage,
utility assets, employee pool, etc):
r") UoBly size K likely la mcrease.
f] UUfty size Is Hccly ha remain unchanged.
£) Utniy ait H Italy to decrease.
(_) Unsure about future utnty sue.
Use tills space to elaborate an yaur answer (aptKinal):
5. Thinking Ahead
Page 7
-112-
-------
WINS: Water Infrastructure National Survey (AMWA-Drinking Water)
1. Do you have an infrastructure master plan?
6. Master Plan
1. What is your planning horizon (in years)
1 to 5 . " 5 *a 10 v "
T^H™,. O O
10 ta 20 v ~
O
20 ta 30 yre
O
2. When was your current infrastructure master plan prepared?
prior ta 1990 1990 ta 1993 199 5 ta 1999 2000 ta 1004
i,«.F..d O O O O
beyond 30 y-5
O
O
3. What is the single largest challenge facing successful implementation of your
master plan?
4. Is your infrastructure master plan available to the public?
[) Yes, the complete pJai B avafetate.
( J Yes, bit only a summary IE available.
No, It B not amiable.
7. Next Steps
1. Please use this space to add any other comments that you think are important
regarding the performance and sustainability of your drinking water infrastructure.
21
2. Would you be willing to participate in a short follow-up survey about your water
infrastructure?
f ) Yes {.you tticn will be acted to provide contact mfarmat»n)
\^J} No (you then wM be directed ta the end af the survey Ji
8. Contact Information
-113-
-------
WINS: Water Infrastructure National Survey (AMWA-Drinking Water)
1. You arrived on this page because you opted to participate in a short follow-up
survey, to be distributed within the next 12 months.
Please provide the contact information requested below.
Be assured, the anonymity of your previous responses in this survey will be
preserved.
Your contact information will not be linked with or traceable to any responses you
have provided.
Your contact information will be treated as confidential data and will not be shared
with anyone under any circumstances.
If you decide not to provide any contact information, simply return to Question 2 in
Section 7 and select "No".
Him*:
Company:
Add ten 2:
CHy/Towni
State:
ZIP,.' Port a I Out i
Country:
Email Mdrcn:
Phone Number:
9. Thank You !
This IE the last page of Bie rational DRINKING WATEA mfrastnictura survey.
You can return any time bcfan August 31, 2tiO.fi ho madly AID date your responses.
(Just use Hie hat ink provided in ttie email rram AMWAJ.
Your partidpzUan K vital tn the success of Bits natatorial assessment.
Results Gttrts anonymous survey wHl be provided ta the AHWA Eioecuttve Office by Octafeer 1, JJJH.
To exit from Hie survey^ please dink the "Done" button below.
Page 9
- 114-
-------
Appendix I-D
One-line questionnaire for wastewater industry
-115-
-------
WINS: Water Infrastructure National Survey (NACWA)
1. Motivation
This survey is about the Nation's WASTEWATER infrastructure.
A printed version of this survey accompanied the email with the hot link to this site.
After reviewing the printed version, the on-line version can be completed in 30 minutes
The University of Cincinnati, with support from USEPA's Office of Research and Development, is conducting a
national assessment to identify and analyze the most important factors that may affect the performance of public
and private water and wastewater systems in the US over the next SO years. This information will be used, in part,
to help USEPA define and prioritize directions for innovative research on sustainable urban water infrastructure.
Factors affecting your wastewater infrastructure might include, among other things, climate change, population
growth, economic pressures, funding shortfalls, institutional changes and regulatory requirements,
We believe the best way to identify these and other factors is with feedback from the members of the National
Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) who deal with these issues every day.
Please take a moment to complete this ANONYMOUS survey to help us understand which issues are most important
and which deserve research priority as you develop plans for renovating, restoring, replacing and expanding your
water resources infrastructure in the years ahead.
"Exact" answers are not required; in many cases an order-of- magnitude approximation is acceptable. Some
questions can be left blank, if you choose.
You can save your responses and return to the survey at a later time. The survey will remain open until June 30,
2008.
Be assured that there is no way to trace any particular response back to any participating utility. Pooled results
from this anonymous survey will be shared with the NACWA executive office by October 1, 2008.
++++++++ •*•+++++++++ +++++•(•+++•(•+++•+•)•+ +++++++•*•+++++•(•+++••»• +•++ ++
[Last revision on June 2, 2008]
2. Utility Profile
1. What is the approximate size of your service area (sq mi)?
Ota 10 10 to 100 UJT31.JJU 1,000 tn 10,000 D«Er 10,000
o o o o o
o o o o o
2. Approximately, how many service connections do you have in your collection
system in 2008?
Number af Connections
3. Approximately, how many people do you serve in 2008?
Number af People
Page 1
-116-
-------
WINS: Water Infrastructure National Survey (NACWA)
4. Approximately, what percentage growth in the number of "people served" do you
expect in the next 20 years?
taxx man 0 0 to 10 10 la 50 SO to 100 greater thin 100
Percentage Grawtn O O O O O
5. How many people do you employ?
OtoS 10 to 99
O O
"M» O O
100 to 499
O
O
500 In 999
O
O
over i,.aaa
O
O
6. What is your system-wide AVERAGE DAILY flow (MGD)?
In Summer 200S
In Summer 2023
In Winter 2008
In Wkiter 202S
7. What is your system-wide MAXIMUM DAILY flow? (MGD)
In Summer 2003
In Summer 2023
In W inter 2008
In Wttiter 2028
8. Approximately, what is the average annual temperature (F) in your region?
•ess rial ill 40ta50 50 la 60 CO la 70 greater than 70
O O O
40 ta 50
O
Average Temp <*) Q
9. Approximately, what is average annual precipitation (inches) in your region?
*is tlan la lOta 25 25 ta 40 40 to ?c —— •
O O O O
Average Preap (in)
greater than 55
O
3. Current Infrastructure and Operation
1. How many waste water treatment plants do you operate?
2. What is the total design capacity of all the treatment plants in your wastewater
system (MGD)?
Page 2
-117-
-------
WINS: Water Infrastructure National Survey (NACWA)
3. What types of treatment unit processes do you utilize? (Check all that apply)
I J Activated Sludg.*
| _ | Adsoipbon
I Aaoted Lagoons
| Ana&atilc Dlgestan
J Chemical Praapmun
FStratwn
Flotation
Nubtait Rcmanl
azane Cliainticr
Rotating G4akiglczl Co
I | Scdknoitallan
J StAmzzUai Pauls
Q Tncklmg F«xr
Q UV Light
Oder (plEBse specify)
4. How many pumping stations do you operate in your wastewater collection and
treatment system?
5. Approximately, how many miles of pipe do you have in your collection system?
Page 3
-118-
-------
WINS: Water Infrastructure National Survey (NACWA)
6. Approximately, what percentage of the miles of pipe in your waste water collection
system is constructed with the following materials? (numbers should total to 100):
Asbestos Cement
Cast iraii
OucUe Iran
Concrete
Steel
Folyvlnyl Oifcndc (I'VE)
High dainty Polyethylene
(MCF)
Ottier
7. Considering all the miles of pipe in your collection system, approximately what
percentage is greater than 50 years old?
Ota 15 16 to 30 31 HHS 4« In 60 greater than 60
— O O O O O
8. Considering all the miles of pipe in your collection system, what is the approximate
annual breakage rate (breaks per mile per year)?
lux nan 0.1 0.1 to 0.25 0.25 to 0.5 0.5 tn 1.0 greater titan 1.0
*,aWm,*y«a, O O O O O
9. Considering all the miles of pipe in your collection system, approximately what
percentage is replaced each year?
0.0 to 0.5 0.5 to 1.0 1.0 to 1.5 1.5 to 2.0 greater tnan 2.0
—• O O O O O
10. Approximately, what percentage of your system-wide wastewater stream is
infiltration and inflow (I/I)?
0 to 5 5 to ID iota 20 20 to 30 greater than 30
~* O O O O O
11. Approximately, what percentage of your wastewater infrastructure assets
(pumps, pipes, plants, etc) is inspected each year?
OloS 5 to 10 10 In 20 20 ta 30 greater than 30
~- O O O O O
12. On a scale of 1 (poor condition; frequent problems) to 10 (excellent condition; no
problems), indicate the average overall system-wide condition and performance of
your pumping stations:
1 (poor) 23456799
•»,„,*.»,„ ooooooooo "*o"'
It you assigned a score < Id, please indicate the nature of the |
Page 4
-119-
-------
WINS: Water Infrastructure National Survey (NACWA)
13. On a scale of 1 (poor condition; frequent problems) to 10 (excellent condition; no
problems), indicate the average overall system-wide condition and performance of
Your waste water collection lines:
1 (paor)
1G
*.«».,.«. ooooooooo l"cT'
It ,p:i j i:: q-isd a scare < 10, please iindKate the nature of the
14. On a scale of 1 (poor condition; frequent problems) to 10 (excellent condition; no
problems), indicate the average overall system-wide condition and performance of
your waste water treatment plants:
1 (poor) 23456789 (eiceient!
iv..™-*^ ooooooooo "cT
If you assigned a scare < 10, please Indicate the nature of the nrabtem(s).
15. Excluding "routine" pipe repairs, indicate the approximate year of the last major
upgrade to your facilities (pumping station, major transmission line, WWTP, etc)
pnor to 1990 1990 to 1994 199 S to 1999 2000 ta 2004 SHOE 2005
i.«.F«d O O O O O
16. Does your collection system experience sanitary sewer overflows?
O
17. Does your collection system experience combined sewer overflows?
18. Are you using a formal asset management program in your wastewater
collection and treatment operations?
4. Agents of Change
-120-
-------
WINS: Water Infrastructure National Survey (NACWA)
1. Listed below are six very general categories for issues that may affect the
operation of your utility and perhaps require changes in your wastewater
infrastructure over the next 40 years. These changes might include upgrades,
expansions, replacements, repairs, rehabilitation or possibly downsizing and
decommissioning. Please rank the six categories in their relative order of importance
according to their anticipated impact on the operation of your infrastructure.
Ornate Cnange
Economic Con
Environment a* Regs
InsatunaafiBl Chang*
Lade at Federa! Funds
fa Dilation Growth
important)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
important)
O
o
o
o
o
o
2. Please use this space to elaborate on your rankings and/or to add other factors
not mentioned in Question 1. Additional space for other comments is included at the
end of this survey.
3. Listed below are ten specific problems which may adversely affect the operation
of your wastewater utility over the next 50 years. Please rank the ten problems
according to the seriousness of their anticipated impact on the operation and
sustain ability of your wastewater utility.
Ag*ig Water System
Infrastructure
Decline In Local Revenue
Stream
Oedkie m State or
Federal Ad
inadequate Treatntent
Capacrry
Increased Cost of Eneigy
Lade of Skiled WonV
Force
Outdated Treatment
Technology
Reduced Raw in Receiving
Water Body
Regulations
Vulnerable to Cyber and
AiysKBl Attacks
1 (most
" T: ' ' J ';
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
Page 6
-121 -
-------
WINS: Water Infrastructure National Survey (NACWA)
4. Please use this space to elaborate on your rankings and/or to add other factors
not mentioned in Question 3. Additional space for other comments is included at the
end of this survey.
5. Which scenario most closely fits your wastewater utility and its operation over the
next 40 years ("size" refers to customer base, annual revenue, areal coverage,
utility assets, employee pool, etc):
r~J Liftoff azt K Ktely to ncrease.
f") UUfty size Is Mcely la remain unchanged.
r") UMcty Hie B I«e^ to decrease.
£~J Unsure about future ut*ty size.
Use tiib space to elaborate an yaur answer |aj]txinal>.
5. Thinking Ahead
1. Do you have an infrastructure master plan?
f J Un
6. Master Plan
1. What is your planning horizon (in years)
1 to 5 yrs 5 to 10 yre
Time Mtiiian
10 to 20 yre
O
20 to 3d yis
O
2. When was your current infrastructure master plan prepared?
(Hid In 1990 1990 to 1994 1995 to 1999 2000 to 2004
*•»—" O O O O
bcyemd J J v.s
O
O
3. What is the single largest challenge facing successful implementation of your
master plan?
Page 7
-122-
-------
WINS: Water Infrastructure National Survey (NACWA)
4. Is your infrastructure master plan available to the public?
Y«, Hie compute pint B avafebte.
Yes, but only a summary IE available.
No, It K nut amiable.
7. Next Steps
1. Please use this space to add any other comments that you think are important
regarding the performance of your waste water infrastructure.
2. Would you be willing to participate in a short follow-up survey about your water
infrastructure?
( ) Yes (you then will be asked ta provide contact InformationJ
(") No {you then w*l be directed to Hie end of the survey)
8. Contact Information
Pages
-123-
-------
WINS: Water Infrastructure National Survey (NACWA)
1. You arrived on this page because you opted to participate in a short follow-up
survey, to be distributed within the next 12 months.
Please provide the contact information requested below.
Be assured, the anonymity of your previous responses in this survey will be
preserved.
Your contact information will not be linked with or traceable to any responses you
have provided.
Your contact information will be treated as confidential data and will not be shared
with anyone under any circumstances.
If you decide not to provide any contact information, simply return to Question 2 in
Section 7 and select "No".
Him*:
Company:
:
:
aty/Towni
Etjtc:
ZIP; Post a I Code
Csuntrv:
Email Md re ii :
Phone Number:
9. Thank You
This is the last page of the national WA5TEWATER infrastructure survey.
You can return any time before June 30, ZOOS to modify/update your responses.
(Just use the hot link provided in the email from NAWCA),
Your participation is vital to me success of this national assessment.
Results of this anonymous survey will be provided to the NAWCA Executive Office by October 1, 2.00B.
To exit from tile survey, please clink the "Done" button below.
Page 9
-124-
------- |