Welcome to the Tap into Resilience Toolkit
Welcome to the TiR Toolkit! The Toolkit is an interactive resource for utility decision makers, management, and staff.
Onsite, localized water infrastructure has tremendous potential to address our communities water needs – from drinking water to wastewater to stormwater management. But scaling up investment in and implementation of these solutions and strategies can be challenging.
You’re in the right place. The Tap into Resilience Toolkit is a resource with answers to your financing, tax, accounting, and legal questions that arise when scaling investment in decentralized solutions. The Toolkit includes interactive financing and implementing modules, videos, a resource library, a portal to receive pro-bono support, and much much more.
The Toolkit is here to help you explore, plan for, finance and adopt localized infrastructure solutions like water use efficiency programs, green infrastructure, and onsite reuse.
Tap into Resilience case studies across the country into a 10-part, high-level decision-making framework for deploying localized water infrastructure strategies at larger scale. This guidance can be adapted and used by local communities as the basis for implementing localized water strategies that best fit the community’s particular needs.
sections below to find an overview of that step in the decision-making process along with direct links to relevant case studies, related TiR Toolkit modules, and other resources in the Toolkit Quick Reference Library.
A large number of immediate and longer-term community needs and goals can be drivers for public entities to consider investments in distributed solutions as supplements, or alternatives, to conventional infrastructure. A first step is clearly identifying the various drivers at work in a community and the types of onsite technologies, installations and practices most suited to addressing those issues.
(community demand) to global (climate change) considerations including but not limited to the challenges listed in the box to the right.
approaches, case studies demonstrate that communities are finding there is sufficient data available to model potential performance with a relatively high degree of confidence. This modeling will allow communities to assess the ability of these solutions to effectively meet water management needs. The data from the case studies show that localized options can perform well.
In its tenth year, 
of the localized infrastructure decision-making framework, we highlight two in particular: 
these or similar planning documents is essential for any project to be considered eligible for capital financing. One of the surest ways for localized infrastructure to be treated on par with more conventional infrastructure approaches is to incorporate these solutions into capital planning. This shift in framing can open up the full range of available funding options — see Part 5 below.
because the proper matching of expenses and revenues gives a more accurate appraisal of the results of operations, helps to avoid distortion of the financial position of the business, improves the quality of the financial statements, and ensures generational equity so that future ratepayers share in the costs of improvements that provide benefits over time. Further, the GASB interpretation guide uses water efficiency programs as an example of what a utility might choose to capitalize: “…certain period costs (for example, … conservation program costs of providing assets, such as low-flow shower heads, to customers) that are proposed for recovery in future rates.”
Leveraging one or more of these funding sources to scale investment in localized water solutions is the surest and most expeditious way to deploy adoption of these strategies broadly across a community and more fully realize their benefits.
Decentralized strategies, by definition, require partnering with owners of various types of property throughout the community—streets, public buildings and parks, schools, institutions, businesses, industries and residences. Implementing onsite water strategies thus presents unique opportunities for community engagement, but also means that achieving widespread adoption of these strategies must include an intentional and well-resourced program to incorporate stakeholder outreach, education and communication at both the planning and implementation phases.
owned utilities go above and beyond baseline public review and comment requirements and become anchor institutions in their communities. To this end, water utilities across the country are increasingly turning to partnerships with community groups, NGOs, and other cities and utilities to build capacity and advance greater water equity in their communities. The “
Like conventional infrastructure, distributed water infrastructure entails implementation complexities such as navigating legal, financial and accounting issues. In addition, different types of localized strategies can entail different types of risks; for example, onsite treatment and reuse systems raise public health issues; leak detection devices sometimes require professional installers raising training and liability challenges; bioswales, green roofs and urban trees require ongoing maintenance (see below). Implementation issues can be more easily addressed by identifying them as early as possible in planning and establishing a process to resolve them.
agreements, setting 
gaps in information, resource, expertise or capacity to explore let alone implement newer approaches.
about how to ensure that investments in distributed systems are properly maintained to ensure functionality over time. Whether the best approach is to pass this responsibility on to property owners or for the utility to retain it will necessarily be situation-specific. Case studies do, however, provide some guidance for mitigating this challenge, such as entering into operation and maintenance contracts with landowners.
One of the best ways to build public, utility and decision-maker confidence in the efficacy of distributed systems is meaningful data demonstrating value and establishing that these investments are performing as intended.
flooding, to drought to basement backups to water contamination and more—all of which are exacerbated by climate change.
urban stormwater runoff from separate sewer systems continues to be a major cause of impairments to surface water quality and adverse impacts to public health. Climate change puts additional pressure on these challenges, increasing the likelihood of storms and floods in some locations, and exacerbating drought and heat in others.
Recognizing the reality of frontline communities is an important first step in meeting these communities’ pressing needs and advancing water resiliency at the local level. 
As concerns about water resiliancy are rising to the fore, utilities and community organizations alike are working to center the issues faci
Additional state-level policies, resolutions, and plans related to drinking water can be found in River Network’s 
and understanding of water challenges, advocates for policy strategies, and enables members to deliver on water resiliency results for their communities. The Caucus primarily focuses on federal advocacy, and also fosters peer learning, tool and knowledge development, and facilitates shared local, state, and tribal advocacy. The Caucus’ advocacy helped create the first federal 
such as high efficiency appliances, graywater reuse systems, lead service line replacements, leak detection devices, onsite non-potable reuse systems, rainwater harvesting, smart irrigation controllers, turf replacement, and source water protection and watershed health.
bioswales, blue and green roofs, constructed wetlands, green streets, land conservation, permeable pavement, rainwater harvesting, and urban tree canopies.
In addition to these water management benefits, localized infrastructure provides much needed co-benefits to frontline communities, including:
Private properties of various kinds represent roughly 60% of the land mass of most cities and towns in the U.S. So large-scale adoption of onsite localized water infrastructure that could generate multiple benefits for low income and majority minority communities depends on successful partnering with homeowners, businesses, and institutions of all kinds. These partnerships are most successful when the city, town or utility develops a specific, intentional approach to 
Other strategies frontline communities can use to implement localized infrastructure
gentrification for a several reasons, which are in line with the strategies outlined above. The green infrastructure movement in New Orleans is rooted in black and brown neighborhoods, and the people leading the work are black-lead community organizations. Local utilities are working with these community groups, following their lead. Further, GSI has been implemented with a focus on workforce development for people of color. And the way the city is prioritizing siting for green infrastructure accounts not only for flooding benefits but also for where the investment are most needed from a community perspective.
Frontline communities that have never been connected to centralized drinking water or sewer systems for various reasons confront additional, complex challenges. For these communities, and the utilities that serve them, the path to health and safety often lies in finding ways to connect to existing centralized systems through consolidation and/or regionalization to create a combined system serving multiple jurisdictions.
Shutting off water service for non-payment of water utility bills has been standard utility practice nationwide for decades. This approach has been criticized for many years—water and sanitation are basic human needs. However, the COVID-19 pandemic thrust the issue into public consciousness and debate at a new level and there is a growing consensus, although by no means unanimity, that it is crucial for water utilities to develop strategies to avoid water shutoffs, and to develop alternatives to address non-payment of water service bills. The issue is particularly acute in frontline communities where residents can be especially vulnerable to shutoffs.
“public-private partnership” is often a source of confusion. This term is used to describe a variety of arrangements between governments and private sector organizations from full privatization of formerly public municipal water providers, to outsourcing, grants, leases, asset sales, and others. Learn more about partnership types and considerations before entering into a public-private partnership 
Inter-generational resiliency is the idea that water infrastructure costs should be borne by both current and future ratepayers because the benefits of these investments are enjoyed by both. The primary vehicle for advancing inter-generational resiliency is public borrowing, often in the form of municipal bonds and/or other low cost capital. For example, cities and utilities will typically finance gray infrastructure such as water treatment facilities or stormwater tunnels by floating municipal bonds; they use the bond proceeds as capital to pay for the upfront construction costs, and amortize repayment of the loan over the 30-year (or more) life of the bonds. Thus, the cost of long-lived infrastructure is not borne entirely, or even primarily, by the ratepayers at the time of construction, but is instead shared by ratepayers across the decades that the infrastructure is providing community benefits.
There are considerable resources available to support local water utilities and water resource agencies. Key to both navigating and accessing those resources is having a clear-eyed vision of what specifically would be most needed and useful. Utilities serving frontline communities often face a range of capacity challenges, including:
public, extend and supplement limited utility resources, and advance the goal of an equitable water future for everyone.
To achieve equitable and sustainable water systems and increased public investment in water infrastructure, strong and authentic relationships between local community groups and water utilities, built on trust, are critical. River Network and the WaterNow Alliance went to community organizations and water utilities around the country who have formed successful partnerships to learn what it takes. In 
A Community Water Academy works best for communities where community members and water utility managers and/or staff are both willing to engage to create a forum to build trust around a common purpose or issue. This forum should be a conducive environment that emphasizes inclusion, open and respectful communication, active listening, mutual understanding, constructive feedback, and collaborative brainstorming. In thinking about the purpose of the Community Water Academy, consider what guidelines to set to ensure that discussions are focused and purposeful. Water utility managers and/or staff and community members alike should be involved in developing and delivering the workshop to identify and reach shared outcomes. To determine whether a Community Water Academy is a good fit for your community a few considerations are listed below.
service has become a standard utility practice for addressing non-payment challenges.
Municipal, or revenue, bonds are bonds issued by local governments to raise funds for public capital projects. These types of bonds provide up-front capital that is paid back over the life of the bond out of general revenues. 
easements and leasehold interests. 
Weighted Average Maturity
Broadly speaking, “capital expenditures” under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) are expenditures for fixed or capital assets. 
The WaterSMART program was created to address the Western United States’ serious water challenges – widespread drought, increased population, aging infrastructure, and environmental water requirements that all place strain on water resources. The WaterSMART Program funds local water management programs that seek to conserve and use water more efficiently, mitigate conflict risk in areas at a high risk of future water conflict, or accomplish other benefits that contribute to water supply reliability, among other objectives.
The Environmental Water Resource Projects (EWRP) fund projects focused on benefitting ecological values, while increasing the reliability of water resources. Eligible project types include:
continue to deliver water and power during a drought and should decrease vulnerabilities and costs of drought. Eligible projects fall into three different categories: increasing the reliability of water supplies, improving water management, and providing benefits for fish, wildlife and the environment.
Unlike the other WaterSMART funding programs, the 
Bucket 2 Environmental Drought Mitigation or “B2E” provides funding to public entities and tribes for projects that provide general environmental benefits or ecosystem / habitat benefits that address issues directly caused by drought.
Housing and Urban Development’s Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program (Section 108) provides communities with a source of low-cost, long-term financing for economic and community development projects. Section 108 financing provides an avenue for communities to undertake larger, more costly projects, where they may have limited resources to invest in upfront.
HUD Section 108 staff provides 
decentralized strategies on public property not directly owned or controlled by the water utility, i.e., “
owned and other government buildings to meet stormwater management needs.
For example, 
Ensuring that decentralized water solutions on public non-utility property are properly operated and maintained is vital to securing the success of these strategies. Options for addressing this challenge include c
Motivating existing property owners or developers to voluntarily install water-saving or stormwater-managing infrastructure and scaling investments in these cost-effective programs can, however, be challenging. 
dozens of households while others serve millions of people. For purposes of this module, we are focused on systems serving populations of at least 5,000, as smaller systems often face their own unique challenges and needs. The module also focuses on drinking water utilities, but may, nonetheless be relevant for wastewater systems as well, given potentially overlapping concerns.
A community’s health, safety, and economy are dependent on the ability to access clean, safe, and affordable water, making water a critical public good. Providing uninterrupted access to clean water also is fundamental to 
research supported by Cornell University found that “among the largest water systems, private ownership is related to higher water prices and less affordability for low-income families.”
concern—keeping rates low due to the direct accountability they have to the general public, which has shown time and again that they will vote leaders out of office over rates.
particular, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that workers earn 7.4% less at private utilities. For example, as of May 2007 (the most recent year for which data was found), local government employees’ median annual earnings were $37,740 and nongovernment water, sewage, and other systems employees earned $34,950. And as compared with local government benefits, an additional one in three workers lacks access to retirement benefits.
created than the same investment in deep tunnel systems or new water treatment plants. As is shown in the chart below, a $10 million investment in urban forests has the potential to create nearly 230 jobs; the same investment in a deep tunnel system has the potential to create about 150 jobs, nearly 100 fewer jobs as compared with the conventional approach. These estimates are based on research conducted by Economic Policy Institute, as well as data collected from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Expenditure profiles for each investment category are based on existing examples and expert opinion, and may vary considerably depending on project specifics. The Water Infrastructure Jobs Calculator does provide a starting place for evaluating the workforce benefits of sustainable infrastructure investments.
in the late 19th century and into the 1930s. The tide turned once again in the 1980s with efforts to re-introduce privatization in various forms. More recently, there have been a number of remunicipalizations to bring privately-run services back into public control. Most of these buy-backs were driven by cost or water quality concerns, rather than philosophical objections to private ownership that drive remunicipalization in Europe and Latin America, according to a 2021 study.
