EPA 2020 COVID-19
WATER SECTOR SURVEY
Summary Report
*>EPA
810-R-21-001
-------
KEY FINDINGS
EPA conducted a survey from October to December 2020 to learn how the CQVID-19 pandemic has
affected the nation's water sector (drinking water and wastewater systems), and whether the sector
anticipates lasting challenges resulting from the pandemic. A statistically representative sample of 1,956
community water systems (CWSs), wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs), American Indian utilities
(Al utilities), and Alaska Native Village utilities (ANV utilities) (collectively, "utilities") responded to the
survey.
Survey results indicate that:
• About one-third (36%) of the nation's water and wastewater utilities encountered shortages or
supply chain disruptions of one kind or another in 2020. Shortages of personal protective
equipment (PPE) were particularly notable, especially during the early phase of the pandemic.
There were fewer shortages and supply chain disruptions involving treatment chemicals or
durable goods such as valves and pipes, but chemical shortages did affect Al and ANV utilities
and concerns remain about potential future disruptions throughout the sector. Concerns about
future availability were most commonly expressed for sodium hypochlorite (6%), gaseous
chlorine (3%), and polymers (3%).
• About one-quarter (27%) of the nation's water and wastewater utilities experienced personnel
shortages during the pandemic, due to missed work (for example, on account of illness, care of
family members, daycare closure, and virtual schooling) and other factors, such as lack of
backup certified personnel. A commonly reported concern was maintaining operations should
key staff become sick or be required to quarantine simultaneously. Respondents also
commented that the pandemic has exacerbated existing challenges associated with an aging
workforce.
• Financial effects of the pandemic on operating budgets were highly variable. Some utilities had
shortfalls in their budget, and others had surpluses. Approximately 48% of utilities took some
action to mitigate potential decreases in cash flow. Around one-quarter (24%) of utilities drew
down reserve funds during the pandemic, around one-fifth (22%) delayed or canceled capital
projects, and around one-fifth (18%) delayed maintenance. Owing to the essential nature of
their work as well as systemic and short-term workforce challenges noted above, smaller
percentages reduced staff hours (5%), laid off staff (2%), or reduced staff pay and/or benefits
(2%). Utilities that took remedial actions like drawing down reserve funds, delaying capital
projects, and delaying maintenance will continue to feel the effects of the pandemic on their
operating budgets in the years ahead.
o About a quarter (23%) of utilities in the nation experienced a net revenue loss during
the reporting period and there were significant losses or gains for a small number of
utilities. On average, net revenue was a positive 10%. The exception was Al and ANV
utilities, with an average deficit/loss of -113%; this finding is driven by a handful of small
Tribal utilities reporting losses of large magnitude. While the net revenue of less than
one-quarter of utilities was negative, the average losses or deficits of the utilities with
negative net revenue was substantial, averaging approximately 39% of revenue. Around
SEPA
-------
one-third (32%) of the nation's water and wastewater utilities had shortfalls in
operating net revenue (i.e., lower than budgeted net revenue). The 95% confidence
interval for the cumulative shortage at these utilities was an estimated $2.7 to $4.8
billion. Nearly half of the estimated national shortfall was incurred by CWSs serving a
population of over 10,000. These operating net revenue estimates are subject to some
uncertainty because many (over two-thirds) of the participating utilities did not provide
financial data. In many cases, the reported data did not cover the full calendar year of
2020. Most of the survey respondents (64%) that provided revenue and expense data
did not report data for the final quarter of the year, which included a spike in COVID-19
cases; therefore, the total operating net revenue shortfall for the year may be outside of
the estimated range.
o Among water and wastewater utilities in the nation that experienced lower operating
revenue than budgeted, the most common COVID-19-related contributing factor was
nonpayment of bills (affecting around 51%), followed by decreased use of services
(affecting around 29%).
o To ensure continuity of service during the pandemic and the associated economic
downturn, around half of the nation's water and wastewater utilities (52%) suspended
service shutoffs. In addition, many provided extensions on bill payment (44%) and
waived late fees (36%). Approximately 65% of utilities took one or more steps such as
these to ensure continuity of service.
Around one-tenth (11%) of water and wastewater utilities have experienced issues related to
sample collection during the pandemic. The most commonly cited issue, which affected 6% of
utilities, was lack of access to approved monitoring locations.
Similarly, around one tenth (12%) of water and wastewater utilities have experienced issues
related to completion of required laboratory analyses during the pandemic. Al and ANV utilities
have been particularly affected by sample transport delays and travel restrictions.
The survey data indicate that only about 1% of water and wastewater utilities have experienced
cybersecurity issues and concerns during the pandemic. Those that have experienced such
issues tend to be larger organizations. Among utilities serving populations of 100,000 or more,
13% have experienced such issues or concerns, which ranged from email phishing scams and
ransomware attacks to fraudulent unemployment claims. It is possible that survey results under-
report known cybersecurity issues, since some victims might be reluctant to reveal that their
systems have been compromised.
As the pandemic continues, approximately half (52%, 51%, and 48%, respectively) of the
nation's water and wastewater utilities have some level of ongoing concern about future supply
chain, workforce, and financial issues. About one quarter (27% and 24%, respectively) have
some level of concern about analytical support and cybersecurity issues.
Survey respondents also stressed the importance of recognizing those in the water sector as
essential workers and ensuring that they receive needed support and resources.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Key Findings i
Table of Contents..... iii
Abbreviations iv
1. Introduction and Background 1
2. Supply Chain Issues 4
2.1 Issues Encountered and Severity 4
2.2 Causes 6
2.3 ActionsTaken or Planned ......6
3. Workforce Issues....... 8
3.1 Issues Encountered and Severity 8
3.2 Causes 10
3.3 Actions Taken or Planned 10
3.4 Areas of Greatest Concern..... 11
4. Financial Issues 12
4.1 Operating Budget Shortfalls.............. 12
4.2 Factors Contributing to Lower Revenue or Higher Expenses 18
4.3 Financial Outlook 20
4.4 Mitigating Actions 20
5. Sampling and Analysis Issues 24
5.1 Issues Encountered with Sampling 24
5.2 Issues Encountered with Laboratory Analysis 25
6. Cybersecurity Issues.. 26
7. Overall Concerns for the Future 27
Appendix A: Survey Methodology
Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire
Appendix C: Data Tables for Community Water Systems
Appendix D: Data Tables for Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Appendix E: Data Tables for American Indian Utilities
Appendix F: Data Tables for Alaska Native Village Utilities
Appendix G: Data Tables for All Utility Types
&EPA
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Definition
Al utility
American Indian utility
ANV utility
Alaska Native Village utility
COOP
Continuity of Operations Plan
CWS
Community Water System
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
PPE
Personal Protective Equipment
SCADA
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
WARN
Water and Wastewater Agency Response Network
WWTF
Wastewater Treatment Facility
&EPA
-------
From October through December 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a
survey of the water sector to obtain information about coronavirus disease (COVID-19) related needs.
EPA performed this survey as part of its duties as the designated sector specific agency under
Presidential Policy Directive 21: Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience to help ensure the
resiliency of the nation's drinking water and wastewater systems. The survey requested information on
how the COVID-19 situation affected utility function across multiple areas, including chemical and
equipment supply-chain, workforce, financial, sampling and analysis, and cybersecurity concerns. Survey
information will guide the development of technical assistance that could help sustain water utility
operations and support planning for the future.
The survey was sent out to a statistically representative sample of more than 6,000 of the nation's
approximately 61,000 community water systems (CWSs), wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs), and
Tribal utilities that provide drinking water and/or wastewater services. Since Alaska Native Village (ANV)
utilities face unique circumstances based on their distance from the lower 48 states and their often
remote locations, the Tribal utilities in the survey were categorized as either Alaska Native Village (ANV)
utilities or American Indian (Al) utilities. In this report, the CWSs, WWTFs, Al utilities, and ANV utilities
are collectively referred to as "utilities."
The survey used a stratified random sample based on utility type (CWS, WWTF, Al utility, or ANV utility)
and size (the size of the population served). The survey was national in scope and included utilities from
every state and territory.
The survey was administered electronically. Links were distributed to selected utilities by email, starting
on October 1, 2020, with all responses received by December 31, 2020. Responses to survey questions
were received from 1,956 of the 6,481 utilities in the sample, or approximately 30%. The number of
utilities in the nation, the size of the sample selected, and the number of final responses are shown in
Table 1.1. As can be seen in the table and as illustrated in Figure 1.1, CWSs are the largest of the groups
and provided the majority of responses. Since there are relatively few Al and ANV utilities (510 in all),
EPA attempted to reach nearly all of them.
EPA conducted brief interviews with a sample of utilities that did not respond to the survey to assess the
possibility of non-response bias. The follow-up interviews asked about their reasons for not responding
and their assessment of the effect of COVID-19 on their operations. The responses to the interviews
were generally consistent with the overall findings of the survey; therefore, EPA believes the potential
non-response bias is small. (See Appendix A for more information on evaluation of non-response bias.)
l
svEPA
-------
Table 1.1. Inventory and Sample of Water and Wastewater Utilities for the 2020
COVID-19 Water Sector Survey
jdiiipiiiig jiidiuiii \ i ype ui
Service and Size of the
Population Served)
Inventory of
Utilities
Sample Size
Survey
Respondents
Response
Rate
CWS Less than 501
25,902
948
206
21.7%
CWS 501 -3,300
12,623
933
249
26.7%
CWS 3,301 -10,000
8,568
920
304
33.0%
CWS 10,001 -100,000
670
567
199
35.1%
CWS Greater than 100,000
707
579
211
36.4%
Subtotal, CWS
48,470
3,947
1,169
29.6%
WWTF Less than 10,000
9,684
925
258
27.7%
WWTF 10,000 - 99,999
2,015
808
297
36.8%
WWTF 100,000 or more
354
319
114
35.7%
WWTF Size Unknown
22
22
4
18.2%
Subtotal, WWTF
12,075
2,074
673
32.4%
Al Less than 101
100
82
17
20.7%
Al 101-500
87
75
16
21.3%
Al 501 -3,300
98
78
19
24.4%
Al 3,301 - 10,000
36
36
16
44.4%
Al Greater than 10,000
10
10
3
30.0%
Subtotal, Al Utilities
331
281
71
25.3%
ANV Less than 101
61
61
13
21.3%
ANV 101-500
90
90
22
24.4%
ANV 501 -3,300
28
28
8
28.6%
Subtotal, ANV Utilities
179
179
43
24.0%
Total
61,055
6,481
1,956
30.2%
2
SEPA
-------
Figure 1.1: Participation by Sector
CWSs WWTFs Tribal
673 Utilities
1,169 2 77g 1,401
' 50
115
10,001
¦ Participating
¦ Selected but not participating
" Not selected for sample
44,523
*
345
This report is organized by topic, following the outline of the survey itself. Appendix A provides more
detail on the survey approach, including the statistical methodology and information about precision
and quantification of uncertainty. Appendix B lists the survey questions. Appendices C-G contain
detailed tables summarizing the responses to each survey question. The data tables in Appendices C-G
present both point estimates (i.e., means and proportions) and confidence intervals. With the exception
of confidence intervals for key dollar value estimates, confidence intervals are not presented directly in
the text. However, when confidence intervals are particularly wide, due to the small sample size of
subgroups of respondents, this fact is noted in the text.
The survey presents a snapshot of circumstances during the pandemic year of 2020. It cannot
necessarily be assumed that all of the survey's findings are solely attributable to the pandemic or new in
2020. In a handful of instances (e.g., regarding workforce shortages), survey respondents specifically
noted that the pandemic exacerbated pre-existing problems.
3
SEPA
-------
2.1 Issues Encountered and Severity
Overall, survey results indicate that 36% of the nation's water and wastewater utilities encountered
some kind of shortage or supply chain issue in 2020. As shown in Figure 2.1, water and wastewater
utilities had more trouble obtaining PPE (32% of "Total" utilities experienced shortages or supply chain
disruptions) than treatment chemicals (4%) or durable goods such as pipes and valves (11%). PPE
shortages were considerably more severe among WWTFs than CWSs, and shortages in all categories
were most severe for Al and ANV utilities. Looking to the months ahead, the survey indicated that
utilities have diminished concern about the availability of PPE (19%), but increased concern about the
availability of chemicals (12%) and durable goods (18%). The discussion that follows provides more
detailed findings, first for chemicals, then for PPE, and then for durable goods and other critical
equipment and supplies.
Q.
Figure 2.1: Percent of Utilities that Encountered Supply Chain
Issues
H 70.0%
& 60.0%
^ 50.0%
JO 40.0%
=S 30.0%
+-»
2 20.0%
£ 10.0%
u 0.0%
-------
gaseous chlorine (8%), sodium hydroxide (8%), and lime (8%), among others, and anticipate even
greater difficulties in obtaining all chemicals, with particularly high concern about future availability of
polymers (26%), sodium hypochlorite (17%) and gaseous chlorine (11%). Figure 2.2 shows overall water
sector concern about future availability of the three chemicals most commonly identified by survey
participants: sodium hypochlorite (6%), gaseous chlorine (3%), and polymers (3%). Note that some of
these estimates of chemical shortages, especially for Al and ANV utilities, have fairly wide confidence
intervals. See Appendix A for information about survey precision and Appendices C-G for confidence
intervals associated with these findings about chemical shortages.
(u
ao
CU
4->
c
(D
U
i—
-------
Figure 2.3: Percentage of Utilities Concerned about Shortages of
Goods and Supplies in Upcoming Months, and Level of Concern
„ 12.0%
OJ
;= 10.0%
+-»
*5 8.0%
8? 6.0%
S 4.0%
i_
(D
2.0%
0.0%
Filter media GAC/PAC Membrane Pumps Motors Pipes Valves Fuel Vehicles
modules
¦ Slight ¦ Moderate ¦ Severe
2.2 Causes
The most common reported cause of chemical shortages
was supplier delays, followed by distribution difficulties.
Many CWSs trying to obtain carbon dioxide (62% of
them) found that it was simply unavailable from
suppliers. A significant proportion of high-grade carbon
dioxide is co-produced with ethanol and, as has been
widely reported, reduced demand for fuel led to reduced
ethanol production in 2020. Looking into the future,
water sector utilities have increasing concerns about
chemical supply availability and rising prices.
Utilities attributed PPE shortages primarily to delays and
unavailability from suppliers, and they are largely
concerned about those same factors when they
anticipate future PPE shortages. Some also mentioned
PPE price increases as a concern.
Responses for durable goods and other critical equipment
and supplies mirrored those for chemicals. The leading
contributing factor for most items was supplier delays,
followed by distribution difficulties. One notable
exception was among WWTFs, where distribution difficulties were the leading cause of shortages of
membrane modules (70%). Looking ahead, there is increased concern about unavailability from
suppliers and about rising prices, as well as continued concern about supplier delays.
2.3 Actions Taken or Planned
When utilities experienced chemical supply concerns, most were able to cope by drawing down current
inventory. In the case of sodium hypochlorite, sodium hydroxide, and ferric chloride, a significant
number of those who had supply problems (28%, 19%, and 13%, respectively) switched to alternate
chemicals or procedures (e.g., switching from 6% hypochlorite to 12%, or from ferric chloride to ferric
SERA
111 ¦
"Some items purchased would
normally take two weeks to
deliver, now it takes four to six
weeks"
"Suppliers noting difficulty in
finding . . . items. Their inventory
and supply seem to be
dwindling."
"Supplier's workforce . . . is either
reduced or working around
illness."
"We were able to get the supplies
we needed, but it cost a lot
more."
-------
sulfate, or adjusting to the minimum dosage required).
Those who anticipate future chemical supply concerns
are still planning to draw down current inventory, but
they are also increasing their efforts to seek alternate
suppliers and utilize mutual aid support networks like
Water and Wastewater Agency Response Networks
(WARNs). Utilities rarely indicated that they coordinated
directly with local emergency management agencies
about chemical shortages.
For PPE shortages, drawing down inventory and seeking
alternate suppliers were the most commonly reported
response strategies. Masks (N95 respirators and others)
were the type of PPE most commonly requested from
local emergency management agencies.
For durable goods and other critical equipment and
supplies, drawing down inventory and seeking alternate
suppliers were the most commonly reported coping
strategies. Seeking alternate suppliers was the strategy
most commonly reported for future shortages.
About one-eighth of CWSs (13%), one-fifth of WWTFs (21%), and a majority of Al utilities (57%) and ANV
utilities (60%) sought help from local, state, or Tribal emergency operations centers, primacy agencies,
or similar organizations. Larger CWSs and WWTFs were more likely to seek help than smaller CWSs and
WWTFs. Of those that did seek help, a majority of CWS, WWTF and Al utility respondents said their
requests were "entirely filled," while a majority of ANV utility respondents said their requests were
"partly fulfilled." A small number of respondents in each group said they did not request help, but they
would have if the option had been available or if they had known.
"[We] made requests through the
municipal government to the
local and then state emergency
management groups."
"Contacts and dialogue was made
early on with our suppliers."
"Our Tribe and local emergency
agencies have done a great job of
planning and distributing PPE,
supplies, etc."
"Water industry personnel should
rank with first responders to
receive supplies."
7
SEPA
-------
3. WORKFORCE ISSUES
3.1 Issues Encountered and Severity
The survey shows that around one quarter (27%) of water and wastewater utilities experienced
shortages of key personnel (a term that includes both staff and contractors performing critical functions
to maintain operations). As shown in Figure 3.1, the categories most reported as subject to shortages
were field workers (15%) and licensed and certified operators (14%). Around 4% of utilities had
shortages in at least three categories, and 1% had shortages in all seven listed categories.
Figure 3.1. Percentage of Utilities that Experienced Workforce
Shortages, by Personnel Type
Slight ¦ Moderate ¦ Severe
In general, CWSs reported the lowest rates of personnel shortages and Al utilities reported the highest
(see Figure 3.2, which focuses on licensed and certified operators).
F
CWSs
WWTFs
Al utilities
ANV utilities
O.C
igure 3.2: Percentage of Utilities t
of Licensed or Certified 0
:hat Experienced a Shortagi
perators, by Sector
e
0% 50.0%
0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.
r/o 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.
8
svEPA
-------
Larger utilities (serving more than 10,000 customers) were more likely to experience workforce
concerns than smaller utilities. This is true of all worker categories, as shown in Figure 3.3. For licensed
and certified operators, it is true of CWSs and WWTPs but not Al utilities, as shown in Figure 3.4.
Figure 3.3. Percentage of Utilities that Experienced Workforce
Shortages, by Personnel Type and Utility Size
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
I
I
Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Large
Licensed/
certified
operators
Lab
technicians/
sample
analysts
Field Engineering/ Critical Administrative Customer
workers design/ equipment service
construction repair
Slight ¦ Moderate ¦ Severe
Figure 3.4: Percentage of Utilities that Experienced a Shortage of
Licensed or Certified Operators, by Sector and Utility Size
i/i Small
i/i
§
u Large
Small
§ Large
Small
<
Large
z Small
<
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0%
9
SEPA
-------
When asked about anticipated workforce shortages in
the coming months, respondents gave very similar
answers to those about shortages already experienced,
indicating that there is no immediate end in sight for the
staffing shortages identified in the survey.
3.2 Causes
As shown in Figure 3.5, the overall leading cause of
staffing shortages was absenteeism (due to factors such
as illness, care of family members, daycare closure, and virtual schooling). Among CWSs and WWTFs,
other commonly cited causes included lack of backup certified personnel and the inability of operators
to obtain or maintain needed certifications. All of the factors listed affected Al and ANV utilities most
severely. Restrictions on travel was the leading factor for ANV utilities, and Al utilities in particular had
difficulty hiring to fill vacancies.
"We are a small water utility with
limited staff. If someone gets ill
with COVID-19 and the rest of us
had to quarantine, this would have
a huge impact."
Q.
3
O
3
4—
o
+J
£
CD
U
&_
CD
Q.
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Figure 3.5. Factors Contribuing to Personnel Shortages
J?
I
v
.o\e
II
I
I
oe
A"
J?
A*
0*
I
ICWS I WWTF ¦ Al ¦ ANV ¦ Total
3.3 Actions Taken or Planned
The most common strategies utilities used to cope with
staffing shortages were delaying non-critical work (38%),
decreasing staffing levels and making changes in shift
work (26%), using telework for job functions that could
be performed remotely (26%), and increasing reliance on
technologies such as live video feeds (26%). In most cases
these strategies were reported to be effective.
"Availability ofSCADA, remote
work, and staggering shifts and
personnel was extremely beneficial
in the success of maintaining our
drinking water supply."
10
SERA
-------
3.4 Areas of Greatest Concern
Participants were asked to identify their greatest concern associated with staffing during the pandemic.
Overall, participants were concerned about a range of workforce issues and no one issue was dominant.
As shown in Figure 3.6, adhering to changing state and local requirements was the most common
concern (29%), followed by protecting high-risk employees (23%). Among those who selected "Other,"
one common theme was concern about maintaining operations if most or all staff were sick or required
to quarantine. For Al utilities, cross-training of personnel was also among the top concerns (17% of
responses from Al utilities), and ANV utilities were particularly concerned about availability of COVID-19
testing for personnel (21% of responses from ANV utilities).
Figure 3.6: Greatest Concern Associated with Maintaining
Staffing During Pandemic
Adhering to state/local requirements
Protecting high-risk employees
Other
¦ Availability of PPE
Cross-training personnel
Availability of testing for illness
Ability to house personnel
Given an opportunity to provide comments on their workforce concerns, several survey participants
pointed out that they were already understaffed before the pandemic. Other participants noted that
water and wastewater staff are essential workers and that during this pandemic they have not always
received the corresponding recognition and resources.
11
SEPA
-------
4. FINANCIAL ISSUES
The effects of the pandemic on water and wastewater
utility finances varied greatly across utilities. This is to be
expected in such a large and diverse sector that provides
a range of services through various business models to
diverse customer bases. Approximately 48% of utilities
took some action to mitigate potential decreases in cash
flow. Utilities that took remedial actions like drawing
down reserve funds, delaying capital projects, and
delaying maintenance will continue to feel the effects of
the pandemic on their operating budgets in the years
ahead. As described below, net revenue, calculated as
revenue minus expenses over part of the year, was
negative for about one-quarter (23%) of utilities and
positive for three-quarters (77%) of utilities during 2020.
In the financial issues section of the survey, utilities were
asked to provide their budgeted revenue and expenses
during the pandemic and their estimates of their anticipated revenue and expenses (see findings in
Section 4.1, below). If their anticipated revenue was lower than their budgeted revenue, or if their
anticipated expenses exceeded their budgeted expense, they were asked additional follow-up questions
about the reasons for the differences (Section 4.2). Not every utility responded to these quantitative
financial questions: fewer than 600 of the 1,956 respondents provided information about budgeted and
actual revenue and expenses. Utilities were also asked additional qualitative questions about their
financial outlook (Section 4.3) and the actions they took to respond to the financial effects of the COVID-
19 pandemic (Section 4.4). Most survey participants (nearly 1,600) responded to these qualitative
questions. The implications of the relatively low response rate of the quantitative financial questions are
described below.
4.1 Operating Budget Shortfalls
A subset of water and wastewater utilities provided information about their budgeted and actual
revenue and expenses in 2020 (though accounting periods differed, as discussed below). EPA used these
data to estimate the potential operating revenue loss experienced by utilities during the reported time
period. The pandemic was not the only factor affecting utilities' finances in 2020, but the survey did ask
utilities to identify pandemic-related factors that contributed to higher operating expenses or lower
operating revenue (described in section 4.2, below).
As described above, not every utility responded to the quantitative financial questions: fewer than 600
of the 1,956 respondents provided information about budgeted and actual revenue and expenses. The
national estimates of water and wastewater utilities' net revenue and other financial parameters are
based on this subset of responses. The relatively low response rate raises two potential concerns. First,
it raises questions of possible bias: Were the survey participants who declined to provide revenue and
expense data more or less likely to face revenue trouble than those who did provide data? A simple
comparison between how these two groups (those that did and those that did not provide financial
data) answered other qualitative financial questions, such as their financial outlook in the months
"Really struggling with financial
issues."
"We are lucky, we have not been
impacted money wise."
"Increased demand from
customers due to staying at
home."
"Those communities we serve
that have a larger commercial
base have been hit hard."
12
svEPA
-------
ahead, did not indicate any clear difference between the two. However, the possibility of bias should
still be kept in mind when interpreting the results. Second, a lower response rate means less precision. A
relatively small sample can be used to produce national estimates if the sample is representative, but
the uncertainty introduced by sampling will be larger in small samples than larger samples. The precision
has been quantified and shown through confidence intervals. For key findings in section 4.1, confidence
intervals are presented in the report. Confidence intervals are also presented in Appendices C-G.
The water sector includes private investor-owned utilities, small privately owned companies, and
utilities owned by states, municipalities, and Tribes. Private for-profit enterprises usually refer to the
difference between revenue and expenses as profit or losses, while public enterprises usually refer to
the difference as surpluses or deficits. In this section, we generally call the difference between revenue
and expenses "net revenue," and apply it to both private and public enterprises. When referring to the
collective losses of privately owned systems and deficits of publicly owned systems, we use the term
"deficits/losses." EPA calculated net revenue (the difference between revenue and expenses) for each of
the 541 utilities that reported these values, and then calculated net revenue as a percentage of revenue
(net revenue divided by revenue) to more easily compare outcomes across utilities of different size. EPA
also compared actual net revenue to budgeted net revenue, identifying a gain or shortfall in net revenue
(measured as actual net revenue minus budgeted net revenue).
Figure 4.1 illustrates the relationships among budgeted and actual revenue and expenses. Actual net
revenue (in the first column of the figure) is the difference actual revenue and expenses. By comparing
actual net revenue to budgeted net revenue the second column of the figure), we can evaluate how the
actual experience deviated from the plans for the year. This difference is useful because a utility with
positive net revenue may still have experienced a loss if that net revenue was lower than budgeted.
Similarly, a utility with negative net revenue may have a deficit or loss that is less than expected. While
the simple measure of net revenue shows the actual changes at each utility, comparison of actual and
budgeted net revenue better reveals the revenue impact of unexpected challenges in 2020.
Figure 4.1: Calculation of Gain or Shortfall in New Revenue
ACTUAL
Actual Revenue
- Actual Expenses
BUDGET
Budgeted Revenue
- Budgeted Expenses
$
Actual Net Revenue — Budgeted Net Revenue ™ Gain or shortfall
in net revenue
Note that the accounting periods were not uniform among respondents. Utilities reported actual and
budgeted expenses and revenue from January 2020 to "present day," which was defined according to
each utility's financial reporting period. Very few reported data for the full calendar year, and almost
two-thirds (64%) of the systems that provided revenue and expense data used a cutoff day for "present
13
SEPA
-------
day" that was earlier than October 1, 2020. Therefore, the financial changes for the full twelve months
of 2020 may be different than reported in the survey.
The net revenue results are ordered from the greatest loss to the greatest gain in Figure 4.2. The figure
shows that about a quarter (23%) of utilities in the nation experienced a net revenue loss during the
reporting period and that there were significant losses or gains for a small number of utilities at both
ends of the graph. Because only a subset of the sample answered the questions about revenue and
expenses, the estimate of 23% experiencing a net revenue loss is somewhat uncertain. The 95 percent
confidence interval for the estimate is 18% to 29%.1 Note that net revenue does not capture the full
story of the effect of the pandemic on utility finances. For example, as discussed in section 4.4 below,
utilities reported taking actions to mitigate decreases in cash flow, such as drawing down cash reserves,
postponing capital improvement projects, and deferring maintenance activities. These remedial actions
will constrain utilities' options and increase costs in future years, but they will not be reflected in the
utilities' 2020 net revenue.
Figure 4.2. Actual Net Revenue (January through Variable End
Dates) as a Percentage of Actual Revenue, by Utility
200%
150%
(D
=2 100%
(D
>
(D
50%
ru
3
< o%
<4—
o
S1 -50%
+J
£
CD
" -100%
0%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
-150%
-200%
Percentage of Utilities
Table 4.1 shows estimates of net revenue across several categories among the nation's utilities. The first
two columns show average net revenue and the average of each utility's net revenue as a percentage of
its total revenue, the latter of which allows a comparison of outcomes across utilities of different type
and size. On average, utilities in every category had positive net revenue. The columns on the right show
results for the estimated 23% of utilities with deficits/losses. The third column shows the average loss
per utility with a deficit/loss, and the final column shows the average deficit/loss as a percentage of the
utilities' total revenue, again, the latter of which allows a comparison of outcomes across utilities of
1 That is: there is a 95% chance that the reported interval of 18% to 29% includes the true percentage of utilities in
the nation experiencing a net revenue loss in the reporting period. For more on confidence intervals, see Appendix
A.
14
SERA
-------
different size. On average, net revenue was a healthy
positive 10%. The exception was Al and ANV utilities, with .....
From an ANV utility: Overall less
an average deficit/loss of-113%. This finding is driven by .... ,
revenue is coming in and general
a handful of small Tribal utilities reporting losses of large , . ^ , ,.
expenses, shipping, cost of supplies
magnitude. While the net revenue of less than one- „ . ....
are increasing. Delays in shipping
quarter of utilities was negative, the average losses or „
also slow things down greatly.
deficits of the utilities with negative net revenue was
substantial, averaging approximately 39% of revenue.
Among utilities with deficits or losses, large organizations
(WWTFs serving 10,000 or more and CWSs serving over 10,000) had the largest average deficits/losses
in dollar terms. In percentage terms, tribal utilities had the severest average deficits/losses, followed by
WWTFs serving under 10,000 with deficits/losses.
Table 4.1. Average Net Revenue and Deficit/Loss (Actual Revenue versus
Actual Expenses)
All Utilities
Only Utilities with a
Deficit/Loss
Stratum
Average Net
Revenue
Average of Net
Revenue as %
of Revenue
Average
Deficit/Loss
Average of
Deficit/Loss as
% of Revenue
CWS 10,000 or Less
$68,000
8%
-$46,000
-35%
CWS Greater than 10,000
$3,943,000
16%
-$1,066,000
-34%
WWTF Less than 10,000
$91,000
17%
-$52,000
-42%
WWTF 10,000 or more
$3,368,000
23%
-$1,175,000
-13%
Al and ANV
$8,000
-113%
-$256,000
-397%
Total
$578,000
10%
-$154,000
-39%
As illustrated in Figure 4.3, the total deficit/loss for all utilities that experienced a deficit/loss is $2.2
billion, which is approximately 17% of their revenue for the period. The associated 95 percent
confidence interval is $1.5 billion to $3.1 billion. CWSs account for most of the total deficits/losses. The
deficits/losses of large CWSs, those serving a population of over 10,000, add up to an estimated $995
million; this accounts for just under half the total estimated deficits/losses.
15
SERA
-------
Figure 4.3. Total Loss of Utilities with a Deficit or Loss
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
tn
i_
~o
o
<4—
o
tn
c
o
$1,000
I
$500
$0
¦ CWS 10,000 or Less I CWS >10,000 ¦ WWTF <10,000 ¦ WWTF 10,000 or more I Al and ANV
EPA also compared actual net revenue to budgeted net revenue, identifying a gain or shortfall in net
revenue (measured as actual net revenue minus budgeted net revenue). This analysis was performed
using data from the 541 utilities that provided all the data needed to perform the calculations (i.e.,
actual and budgeted revenue and expenses).
As illustrated in Figure 4.4, approximately a third (32%) of the nation's water and wastewater utilities
had lower net revenue than budgeted. The associated 95 percent confidence interval is 27% to 40%. The
figure shows that in most cases actual net revenue did not deviate much from budgeted net revenue (on
a percentage basis). On the margins there were some extreme cases where net revenue was much
higher or lower than budgeted. Note that this measure, like net revenue itself (discussed above), does
not capture the full financial effects of pandemic-related disruptions in 2020. As mentioned above and
as will be discussed in more detail in section 4.4 below, utilities reported having taken a variety of
actions to mitigate decreased cash flows in response to the
pandemic. These measures included drawing down reserves,
delaying and cancelling capital projects, and deferring
maintenance. In addition, some survey participants reported
that balancing their budgets required reducing staff. approved rate increase, which
Together, the budget information and the information about
actions taken by utilities to reduce potential financial impacts ^e bucjget »
tell a more complete story of utilities' financial situations in
2020 than either element alone.
16
SEPA
-------
Figure 4.4. Difference Between Actual and Budgeted Net
Revenue (January through Variable End Dates) as a
Percentage of Budgeted Revenue, by Utility
200%
(u
150%
£ 100%
50%
0%
CO
0%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
-50%
oo -100%
-150%
£ -200%
Percentage of Utilities
Table 4.2 compares estimates of budgeted and actual average net revenue and average shortfalls by
category among the nation's utilities. The first column shows the average difference between actual and
budgeted net revenue. The second column shows the difference as a percentage of budgeted net
revenue. In most categories, actual average net revenue was higher than budgeted, but that was not the
case for WWTFs serving less than 10,000 people. The columns on the right show results for only those
utilities with net revenue that fell short of budgeted net revenue. Overall, water sector utility net
revenue was modestly higher than budgeted (4% on average). Among the 32% of utilities with a shortfall
in net revenue, shortfalls ranged from -8% on average for WWTFs serving populations to over 10,000
to -40% on average for Al and ANV utilities.
Table 4.2. Actual Net Revenue versus Budgeted Net Revenue
All Utilities
Only Utilities with a Shortfall
(Actual Net Revenue Less Than
Budgeted Net Revenue)
Stratum
Average of
Difference
between Actual
and Budgeted
Net Revenue
Average of Difference
between Actual and
Budgeted Net Revenue
as % of Budgeted Net
Revenue
Average
Shortfall
Average of Shortfall
as a % of Budgeted
Net Revenue
CWS 10,000 or Less
$12,000
3%
-$61,000
-22%
CWS Greater than 10,000
$1,045,000
10%
-$984,000
-12%
WWTF Less than 10,000
-$9,000
3%
-$117,000
-19%
WWTF 10,000 or more
$302,000
5%
-$977,000
-8%
Al and ANV
$38,000
2%
-$37,000
-40%
Total
$121,000
4%
-$193,000
-20%
17
SEPA
-------
Among the utilities with net revenue that was lower than budgeted, the estimated cumulative national
shortfall was $3.8 billion, as shown in Figure 4.5. The 95 percent confidence interval is $2.7 billion to
$4.8 billion. In dollar terms, large CWSs stand out as having shortfalls accounting for an estimated $1.7
billion—nearly half of the total $3.8 billion. CWSs and WWTFs serving less than 10,000 people incurred
approximately one-third of the shortfall. As described at the beginning of this section, many of the
respondents did not provide data for the full year. Almost two-thirds of the survey respondents that
provided revenue and expense data did not report data for the final quarter of 2020, which included a
surge in COVID-19 cases. Therefore, the shortfall for the full year could fall outside of the estimated
range of $2.7 to $4.8 billion.
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
1 $2,500
o
2)
o $2,000
LO
£
O
= $1,500
>
$1,000
$500
Figure 4.5. Total Shortfall of Utilities with a Shortfall
$o
¦ CWS 10,000 or Less
CWS >10,000
IWWTF <10,000
WWTF 10,000 or more
Al and ANV
4.2 Factors Contributing to Lower Revenue or Higher Expenses
The 541 survey participants that provided revenue and
expense data (summarized in section 4.1, above) were
asked follow-up questions about factors contributing to
lower revenue and/or higher expenses if their financial
data indicated that they were experiencing those
concerns. Due to the relatively low number of responses
to these questions, the points about precision and
potential bias discussed in section 4.1 apply to the
findings presented here as well. Confidence intervals for
quantitative findings presented in this section are found
in the data tables in Appendices C-G.
Among water and wastewater utilities in the nation that
experienced lower operating revenue than budgeted,
survey responses indicate that nonpayment of bills was
the most common COVID-19-related contributing factor
(see Figure 4.6). For approximately 51% of utilities with
lower than expected revenue, nonpayment of bills was a
"The lack of collection of past due
bills . . . and generally slowing of
payments by customers has really
impacted the utility cash flow and
income these past months."
"We also saw a [shortfall] in
revenue due to shut down in
construction/ development [and
fewer than expected] new meter
sets."
"Not able to hold public meetings
to facilitate a rate increase."
SEPA
-------
"contributor" (30%) or a "significant contributor" (21%). These results do not differ substantially among
the different utility types. The second-most-commonly cited factor was decreased use of services. This
affected approximately 29% of utilities, being cited as a "contributor" by 18% of utilities and a
"significant contributor" by 11% of utilities. Reductions in rates and fees did not contribute notably to
utilities' revenue issues.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Figure 4.6. COVID-19-Related Factors that Contributed to Lower
Operating Revenue Than Budgeted
Nonpayment of bills Decreased use Reduction in rates/fees
¦ Not a Contributor ¦ Contributor ¦ Significant Contributor ¦ Do Not Know
Among utilities that experienced higher
operating expenses than budgeted, the most
significant COVID-19-related factor was
consumables (see Figure 4.7), a category that
includes chemicals, filtration media, and other
consumable supplies needed for operations, and
could also include items like hand sanitizer and
disinfectant wipes that were required for
pandemic response (if they were not considered
PPE). Consumables were a "contributor" (33%) or
a "significant contributor" (13%) at 46% of
utilities with higher than budgeted costs. Lesser
but still significant factors included personnel
costs (e.g., overtime, increased hours), utilities
costs (e.g., electricity, fuel), and PPE (e.g., cloth
masks). See section 2 of this report for more
information on difficulties utilities encountered
in obtaining chemicals, PPE, and other items.
"Unplanned funds used for COVID testing
.. . has been a major impact"
"Our company paid all employees' wages
during our half-staff times. ... So this
made our expenses go up."
On capital expenses: "Costs and access
[to] materials significantly impact project
expenses. Low interest rates help."
On wastewater treatment expenses:
"When people stayed home more, we
noticed an increase in flow and then the
increase in grease. It cost us more to get
rid of the grease."
19
SEPA
-------
Figure 4.7. Pandemic-related Factors that Contributed to Higher
Operating Expenses Than Budgeted
100%
80%
60%
40%
Personnel Costs Consumables Utilities Costs PPE
¦ Not a Contributor ¦ Contributor ¦ Significant Contributor ¦ Do Not Know
4.3 Financial Outlook
EPA asked all survey participants (regardless of whether they
provided financial data) whether they expected their financial
situation for the remainder of 2020 to improve, worsen, or stay
about the same compared to the January-to-present timeframe.
The results indicate that most of the nation's water and
wastewater utilities expected their financial situation to stay
about the same for operating revenue (69%) and operating
expenses (74%) for the remainder of 2020. Small proportions of
utilities expected their financial situation to improve (7% for
revenue, 4% for expenses) or worsen (8% for revenue, 6% for
expenses), and a significant minority expressed uncertainty
(16% for revenue, 17% for expenses).
Utilities that expect their financial situation to worsen with
respect to operating revenue overwhelmingly identified
nonpayment of bills as a contributing factor (82%), compared to
33% and 22% identifying decreased use and reductions in
rates/fees respectively as contributing factors.
Utilities that expect their financial situation to worsen with
respect to operating expenses identified consumables as the
primary contributing factor (74%). Personnel costs were also a
leading factor affecting 55% of utilities with a worsening
outlook for operating expenses. Personnel costs would include
expenses such as overtime or increased hours. More than half
(55%) of utilities also identified utilities costs as a contributing
factor.
4.4 Mitigating Actions
EPA asked all survey participants (regardless of whether they
provided financial data) whether they had taken or were
planning to take any mitigating actions in response to
experienced or anticipated decreases in cash flow. Figure 4.8
"Overall less revenue is
coming in and general
expenses, shipping, cost of
supplies are increasing"
"[We serve] a vacation
community heavily reliant
on tourism. [The shutdown]
has wreaked havoc on the
local economy. ... It is
expected that the full
burden will not be felt until
2021."
"\Ne are concerned about
longer term impacts as the
pandemic continues."
"We cut back on asset
management due to
reduced staffing. It will take
longer to perform and the
costs of these materials will
increase."
"We have relied mainly
upon reserves to cover the
loss, expecting use has
[returned] or will soon
return to normal."
20
SEPA
-------
shows what mitigating actions have been taken or planned by the nation's water and wastewater
utilities. The three most common mitigating actions were drawing on reserve funds (undertaken or
planned by 24% of utilities), delaying or canceling capital improvement projects (22%), and delaying
maintenance (18%). Generally, smaller percentages of utilities made or planned personnel or salary
changes, such as reducing staff hours (5%), laying off staff (2%), and reducing staff pay and/or benefits
(2%). However, reducing staff hours was a common action taken or planned by Al (31%) and ANV (29%)
utilities. In addition, 22% of ANV utilities adjusted rates higher than originally planned. Overall, 48% of
utilities took one or more action to mitigate the potential decrease in cash flow.
Figure 4.8. Percentage of Utilities That Took/Planned Mitigating
Action
Drawing on reserve funds
Delaying/canceling capital improvement projects
Delaying maintenance
Drawing down days cash on hand
Adjusting rates higher than originally planned
Incurring additional debt
Reducing staff hours
Refinancing debt and/or deferring debt payments
Laying off staff
Reducing staff pay and/or benefits
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
For each action utilities reported taking or were planning to take to mitigate the decline in cash flow,
information was also provided about the estimated effectiveness of that action. As shown in Figure 4.9,
every mitigating action was judged to be at least somewhat effective by a majority of utilities. Those
options judged most effective were laying off staff, incurring additional debt, and adjusting rates
upward. (The estimated effectiveness of some of the actions in Figure 4.9 is based on a small number of
responses, depending on how many utilities selected the actions shown in Figure 4.8. The number of
utilities selecting each action ranged from several dozen to several hundred. Exact figures, and the
confidence intervals associated with the findings, are presented in Appendices C-G.)
Figure 4.9. Expected Impact of Actions in Mitigating the
Decrease in Cash Flow
Drawing on reserve funds
Delaying/canceling capital improvement projects
Delaying maintenance
Drawing down days cash on hand
Adjusting rates higher than originally planned
Incurring additional debt
Reducing staff hours
Refinancing debt and/or deferring debt payments
Laying off staff
Reducing staff pay and/or benefits
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
¦ Large Impact Small Impact I Do Not Know
21
SEPA
-------
Most utilities have been unaffected by the pandemic when it
comes to capital project planning. But, as shown in Figure
4.10, 12% of the nation's water and wastewater utilities
delayed or considered delaying breaking ground on a new
project, and another 5% paused or slowed or considered
pausing or slowing a project already underway. Another 3%
accelerated or considered accelerating a capital project. Al
and ANV utilities were more likely than CWSs and WWTPs to
report that the pandemic affected capital project planning.
"We still plan for a more
substantial revenue loss, so [we]
continue with reducing expenses
and keeping capital projects on
hold."
Figure 4.10. Actions Taken or Considered Re: Capital
Infrastructure Projects Due to COVID-19
Accelerating loan/grant application
Delaying loan/grant application
Increasing scope or funding
Reducing scope or funding
Accelerating start
Delaying start
Pausing/slowing
0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0%
¦ Series 1
3.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
Approximately 65% of utilities took one or more type of
action to provide relief to struggling customers. Most
notably, as shown in Figure 4.11, 52% suspended service
shutoffs, 44% provided extensions on bill payment, and 36%
waived late payment fees. Among participants who
responded "None" or "Do not know," some noted that they
are wholesale systems that sell finished water to other
utilities, or that their revenue comes from a municipal
budget, or that in some other way the question was not
applicable. Al and ANV utilities were more likely than CWSs
and WWTFs to provide relief by expanding customer
assistance programs and water conservation programs.
Especially among CWSs, larger utilities were more likely to
take actions of this type than smaller utilities.
"From March to July [2020], we
suspended late penalties and
shutoffs. We resumed late
penalties and shutoffs in
August."
"Encouraged customers to
contact us to establish payment
arrangements if they are
unable to pay their bill."
"To address [customer
impacts], there will be no rate
increases next year."
22
SEPA
-------
Figure 4.11. Actions Taken to Alleviate Economic Impacts on
Customers During the Pandemic
Suspended service shutoffs
Provided extensions on bill payments
Waived late payment fees
Expanded customer assistance programs
Delayed or eliminated planned rate adjustment
Expanded water conservation programs
Lowered rates
None / Do not know
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
23
SEPA
-------
5.1 Issues Encountered with Sampling
Only about 11% of water and wastewater utilities
experienced pandemic-related conditions that
interfered with sample collection. The most
commonly cited challenge, which affected 6% of
utilities, was lack of access to approved monitoring
locations, such as drinking water coliform sampling
taps in homes and businesses or wastewater pre-
treatment sampling locations. Lack of access to
approved monitoring locations was mostly reported
as a concern by CWSs (especially larger CWSs,
defined as those serving over 10,000 customers) and
Al utilities. As shown in Figure 5.1 below, lack of
available personnel for sample collection was a
problem for 13% of Al utilities and 13% of ANV
utilities. Lack of available supplies for sampling
and/or shipping was a problem for 19% of ANV
utilities. Lack of PRE was a problem for 11% of ANV
utilities. While lack of PPE for sampling was a
problem for only 1% of CWSs overall, it affected 5%
of the CWSs serving between 10,000 and 100,000
people and 27% of CWSs serving over 100,000
people.
Q.
3
O
i_
ClO
_c
20%
15%
Figure 5.1: Pandemic-Related Conditions Interfering with
Completion of Required Sampling
u
CD
CD
C
V)
0J
10%
CO/
¦
¦
¦
¦
D
M—
o
C
<1J
U
D /O
0%
..1
1 - 1
- -.1
. I.li
-------
5.2 Issues Encountered with Laboratory
Analysis
Similarly, only about 12% of utilities experienced
pandemic-related conditions that interfered with
their ability to complete required laboratory
analyses. The most commonly cited challenge, which
affected only 5% of utilities overall, was delays in
external laboratory service. Additionally, sample
transport delays affected around 10% of Al utilities
and 34% of ANV utilities. Travel restrictions affected
around 18% of Al utilities and 26% of ANV utilities.
Note that the confidence intervals around these
estimates for Tribal utilities are fairly wide.
Confidence intervals are presented in the data tables
in Appendices C-G.
"Some labs . .. had staffing issues and
were not able to produce results in
the typical timeframe. Sometimes this
was known and they were able to
recommend another laboratory for
the month; other times they didn't
inform us [and] we missed a reporting
deadline."
"Air delivery [from an ANV] will be
slowed, which makes it harder to keep
the sample from getting old or
contaminated while air shipped."
25
SEPA
-------
The survey results indicate that few water and wastewater utilities (1% overall) have experienced
cybersecurity issues or concerns during the pandemic. The findings differed considerably, however, by
utility size. Larger utilities were affected more severely than smaller utilities, regardless of utility type. As
shown in Figure 6.1, survey results indicate that cybersecurity issues and concerns affected less than 1%
of utilities serving 10,000 persons or fewer, 4% of those serving between 10,000 and 100,000 persons,
and 13% of those serving over 100,000 persons.
Types of cybersecurity issues or concerns
experienced by water and wastewater utilities during
the pandemic have included:
• Email phishing scams
• Ransomware attacks
• Computer viruses and malware
• Hacking of email accounts
• Unauthorized access to bank accounts
• Identity theft
• Fraudulent unemployment claims
• Uninvited attendees at virtual meetings
It is possible that the survey results presented here
significantly underestimate the actual extent of cybersecurity issues and concerns at water and
wastewater utilities, if (for example) victims of cyberattacks are reluctant to reveal that their systems
have been compromised. Other research (e.g., a 2019 State of Cybersecurity Study published by
information technology and cybersecurity association ISACA) finds that cybercrime in general may be
vastly underreported.
Figure 6.1. Percentage of Water and Wastewater Utilities
Concerned about Cybersecurity
14%
„ 12%
QJ
i= io%
*5 8%
100,000
26
svEPA
-------
7. OVERALL CONCERNS FOR THE FUTURE
At the end of the survey, participants were asked how concerned they were about the topics covered in
the survey in the coming months. The results (see Figure 7.1) show that around half (52%, 51%, and
48%, respectively) of the nation's water and wastewater utilities are at least mildly concerned
(expressing either mild concern or serious concern) about pandemic-related supply chain, workforce,
and financial impacts in the coming months, and around a quarter (27% and 24%, respectively) have
some level of concern about pandemic-related analytical support issues and cybersecurity. Al and ANV
utilities have higher levels of concern than CWSs and WWTFs in most categories (relatively low ANV
concern about cybersecurity being the main exception). Comparison of results across the five CWS size
categories and three WWTF size categories used in the survey shows that larger CWSs and WWTFs
generally have higher levels of concern about all topics than smaller CWSs and WWTFs.
On the whole, the responses to this question seem to indicate higher levels of concern than the answers
given in the specific sections earlier in the survey (though it is not always possible to compare directly).
The more general wording of the question here might account for the difference.
Figure 7.1: Levels of Concern about Topics Covered in the Survey
over the Coming Months
60.0%
cn
QJ
= 40.0%
4—
2 20.0%
CuO
CD
C 0.0%
u
i_
QJ
Q_
Uncertainty
"It's a crystal ball problem—continuing as we are will
result in mild impacts; things getting worse could result
in serious impacts."
"So many unknowns on how our staffing levels may be
impacted by illness, family illness, and childcare needs."
"T.he level of uncertainty and employee stress and wellness
is a long-term concern in our ability to maintain operation
under this long-term pandemic situation."
"Situation is fluid. Changes daily and we could get set
back at any time by having . . . personnel getting sick or
quarantined."
Supply Chain Workforce Financial Analytical Support Cybersecurity
¦ Mild Concern ¦ Serious Concern
A number of survey respondents
commented on the high degree of
uncertainty about how the
pandemic will continue to unfold,
and how this made it difficult to
answer the survey questions and
also plan for the future.
Respondents who have experienced
no major COVID-19-related issues to
date have pointed out that
disruption in the supply chain of
one chemical, or the illness or
quarantining of a small number of
key personnel, could have serious
consequences for operations.
27
svEPA
-------
While some problems associated with the
pandemic, like PPE shortages, have diminished
over time, other problems may get worse with
time or may only become evident over longer
periods. Some survey respondents expressed
particular concern about the effects of an
extended quarantine on morale and on
finances.
Another common theme in the survey
responses was the importance of recognizing
those in the water sector as essential workers.
This lack of recognition is a matter of morale
and also a matter of allocation of resources,
including vaccines. Many respondents felt that
the water sector had not received the support
it needed.
Effects of an Extended Quarantine
"At the staff level, COVID fatigue is setting
in."
"A prolonged outage due to quarantines
would deplete some employees' financial
resources and make them want to return
to work with an infection rather than miss
another paycheck."
"Our utility's ability to pay its bills is
directly related to our customers' ability to
pay their bills. We all need normal
economic activity to resume as soon as
possible."
"This is a marathon and not a sprint."
Recognition as Essential Workers
"Water and wastewater are critical to
front-line functions such as hospitals and
stay-at-home orders. Our workers should
always be included in the definition of
essential workers."
"Utilities get paid to accomplish the
mission, no matter what the
circumstances."
"It felt as though we were left to fend for
ourselves in many areas"
"We also have concerns over the proposed
vaccine distribution schedule not
prioritizing water and wastewater
operators."
28
SEPA
------- |