Welcome to the TiR Toolkit! The Toolkit is aninteractive resourcefor 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.
To explore lessons from learned from TiR Case Studies click through WaterNow’s 10-part decision-making framework for deploying localized water infrastructure strategies at larger scale as best fit a community’s particular needs.
Water Equity and Climate Resilience for Frontline Communities
Find resources tailored to communities across the U.S. that face the first, and worst, impacts of water management challenges, including poor water quality and sanitation, flooding, and contamination and other impacts associated with stormwater runoff—all of which are exacerbated by climate change—in the Frontline Communities module.
What Are My Financing Options?
To learn about accessing capital dollars and other revenue streams to pay for decentralized water infrastructure and solutions to common legal, financial and accounting questions that arise when increasing investments in these environmentally friendly programs click through the “What Are My Financing Options?” sections.
Localized Water Infrastructure Implementation Strategies
To learn about common challenges – and corresponding solutions – for public utilities deploying decentralized strategies on public property not directly owned or controlled by the water utility (“public non-utility property”) and private property click through the “Localized Water Infrastructure Implementation Strategies” section.
Benefits of Publicly Owned Water Systems
To learn about the benefits of public ownership of water systems, what privatization entails, and public private partnerships click through the “Benefits of Publicly Owned Water Systems” section.
Toolkit Quick Reference Library
Click here for quick references to Toolkit resources, example documents, and case studies.
As part of the Innovation in Action: 21st Century Water Infrastructure Solutions report, WaterNow has distilled lessons from 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.
This module of the Toolkit makes the decision-making framework interactive and easily accessible. Just click on the 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.
Explore for yourself to start implementing!
1. Identify the drivers for considering sustainable solutions.
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.
There are many several—often overlapping—drivers motivating water utilities to explore localized solutions from very local (community demand) to global (climate change) considerations including but not limited to the challenges listed in the box to the right.
More than half of the case studies described in the Innovation in Action paper reported deploying localized infrastructure to address the challenges posed by a combination of at least three of these drivers. In other words, localized strategies are serving multiple water management purposes. The most commonly cited drivers for localized infrastructure in the case studies we examined were climate change, declining water supply availability and reliability, drought, regulatory compliance, and urban stormwater management. The decision of the profiled communities to deploy localized infrastructure either to supplement their conventional infrastructure (or avoid expensive new investment in conventional approaches) to meet these fundamental challenges demonstrates sustainable, decentralized strategies can effectively serve the same functions as traditional infrastructure.
Click the case studies below for a few examples of community drivers. All TiR case studies are available here.
Eugene Public Works uses city-wide green infrastructure to meet multiple objectives and improve water quality with 1,300 GSI facilities installed on public and private property to date.
2. Identify appropriate models and data to assess potential performance.
While there may be more variables involved in estimating how well distributed strategies will perform in relation to more conventional centralized 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, Tucson Water’s conservation program conserved more than 2.1 billion gallons (6,446 acre-feet), and the City is currently using water at the same level of use as in 1985, while population increased by more than 226,000 souls. This investment in conservation as a water supply has allowed Tucson Water to defer expanding the capacity of its water system and developing more expensive new centralized supplies.
Milwaukee’s GI program is expected to capture and store 740 million gallons of stormwater, eventually outperforming its Deep Tunnel by more than 200 million gallons.
Looking to these and other examples can help water managers evaluate the risks involved with relying on localized water infrastructure, particularly because the many of case studies chose decentralized options specifically to meet federal and/or state regulatory mandates. A few relevant resources are linked below. Additional resources can be found in the All Resources library.
A Pacific Institute report examining the accuracy of long-range water demand forecasts for California’s 10 largest urban water suppliers finding that per capita water demand declined for all water suppliers…
A project intended to provide communities with a tool that takes into account the costs associated with planning, designing, acquiring, constructing, operating, maintaining, renewing, and replacing stormwater infrastructure.
AWWA Journal Feature article on Tucson Water's avoided cost analysis finding that the utility's water conservation programs saved $416 million in system costs.
The costs associated with public investment in distributed technology and systems will vary widely depending on numerous variables. For purposes of the localized infrastructure decision-making framework, we highlight two in particular: how these strategies are financed, i.e., using annual rate revenue or debt; whether and how cost-benefit analysis accounts for the economic value of key co-benefits that can flow from well-designed onsite programs. Obtaining a fair and accurate understanding of bang-for-buck from a ratepayer perspective will be enhanced by an analysis that captures costs and benefits comprehensively, enabling decision makers to determine the true affordability and rate implications associated with their potential choices.
Various studies, including the Pacific Institute’s multi-benefits framework, are beginning to document that localized and other sustainable water management strategies are capable of providing multiple co-benefits that should be measured and incorporated into decision making. These include open space, improved public health, community engagement, and creating connection with nature, among many other benefits associated specifically with implementing decentralized water strategies. Pacific Institute’s proposed framework includes 3 steps:
Define “the problem” in a way that reflects a holistic approach and analyze the full range of costs and benefits, including benefits that cannot be easily monetized.
Characterize benefits and costs both qualitatively and quantitatively and identify an appropriate baseline measurement as the point of comparison.
Incorporate multiple benefits and costs into decision making using one or more of the growing number of frameworks.
Applying this framework to development of a localized water infrastructure program will help water managers make the case for increased investments in these solutions.
Check out the resources below with more details on Pacific Institute’s multi-benefit framework.
Our partners at the Pacific Institute and collaborator Professor Bob Wilkinson are developing a framework for incorporating multiple benefits of water projects into decision-making.
4. Incorporate distributed systems into capital planning.
Capital Improvement Plans are often a critical blueprint for public utility investment over the long-term. For many, if not most utilities, inclusion in 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.
In particular, under GASB Statement 62, local utilities can account for distributed infrastructure as a regulated asset rather than an annual expense allowing these expenditures to be capitalized. These programs are not “give aways,” they are public investments that provide long term benefits to the utility that accrue over the life of the debt. For example, rebates for water efficient appliances and fixtures add value to a utility’s system by reducing water consumption over time, not only in the year that the rebate was issued.
Assets that provide benefits overtime should be capitalized to ensure the costs are “matched” with benefits. The matching principle is important 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.”
The “What are my financing options?” section of the Toolkit provide more details on capitalizing investments in localized infrastructure.
5. Think broadly and creatively about financing options.
Many financing options available for conventional infrastructure can also be accessed to finance large-scale distributed systems, including but not limited to those listed in the box below.
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.
The “What are my financing options?” sections of the Toolkit provide more details on funding and financing options for localized infrastructure investments. A few key resources are linked below.
At times water utilities may also consider “public-private partnerships” as ways to finance infrastructure investments. Understanding these types of partnerships and their nuances is an important first step to evaluating whether a specific partnership can best meet a public water system’s needs. The “Benefits of Publicly Owned Water Systems” sections of the Toolkit provide more details on the range of partnership types and resources and support for publicly owned drinking water systems as they navigate questions about engaging with private service providers.
High-level framework to identify the type of public-private partnership best suited to a public water utility’s needs, and best practices for evaluating service arrangements.
6. Incorporate stakeholder engagement in planning & implementation.
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.
Key stakeholders include:
Utility customers Sister agencies within the utility’s service area or city Local nonprofits and community groups Area businesses such as landscapers, nurseries, plumbers
Such engagement can help managers identify and prioritize areas of the community most in need of localized solutions such as green infrastructure both from a water management and co-benefits perspective. Taking this step also helps utilities build needed partnerships with community groups that are valuable to implementation and ongoing community engagement.
For example, San Antonio Water System has had great success in working with area groups to reach customers in all parts of its service area. Los Angeles and Austin were able to develop long-term integrated water plans that represent the communities’ needs and values by conducting rigorous public outreach and meeting the public where they were.
Generally, public engagement can help build transparency and accountability. While public utilities have open-meeting requirements that can help guide public engagement, localized infrastructure success is more likely when publicly 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 “Building Capacity Through Partnerships” section of the Toolkit includes resources to identify main capacity challenges facing utilities serving frontline communities, how to identify local partners who can help overcome those challenges, and whatbest practices to follow when building capacity through partnerships.
7. Identify project- and place-specific implementation challenges.
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.
There are plenty of solutions for steering through these challenges, including creating intra-agency coordination through cost-sharing and other agreements, setting regulatory mandates or establishing incentive programs to motive private participation, formalizing ongoing operation and maintenance requirements through contracts, easements, or other mechanisms. Exactly which challenges a community might face and how to overcome them will depend on community, project and occasionally state, specifics.
MWRD funds green infrastructure built by partner communities and public agencies. An Intergovernmental Agreement between MWRD and its partners help secure long-term benefits.
8. Identify internal capacity, gaps, and available support resources.
Not every utility will have the staff capacity and/or expertise to effectively design, finance, and implement significant localized infrastructure initiatives. A critical step is to evaluate where your city or utility may have gaps in information, resource, expertise or capacity to explore let alone implement newer approaches.
Fortunately, there is a large and growing number of resources available to help utility leaders, management and staff navigate issues, from data analysis, to consumer and stakeholder outreach, to financing support, to project design, implementation and construction.
WaterNow’s Tap into Resilience online platform is a hub for exploring these resources and making connections to experts and potential partners. Including pro bono assistance on:
Financing localized infrastructure accessible through the “Ask an Expert” button below.
Jump starting a sustainable water management project through WaterNow’s Project Accelerator. More information on how to apply here.
Becoming a TiR Pilot community by working directly with WaterNow and TiR experts on scaling your community’s investments in localized infrastructure.
Navigate the Flood – a guide for small systems responsible for stormwater and flood management.
The materials linked below are just a few of the resources available in the TiR All Resources Library designed to help utility leaders, management and staff identify and navigate their community’s water management challenges.
A step-by-step guide and curated list of external technical and financial resources for flood and stormwater management designed with local decision makers in mind.
There is a great deal of discussion, particularly around green stormwater infrastructure implementation, 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.
To ensure distributed infrastructure is properly operated and maintained, water managers need to:
identify staff dedicated to inspection, oversight, and/or monitoring at the outset of the program wherever possible and/or
create a training program to build a cohort of third-party inspectors that report to the utility.
Taking this approach allows water managers to keep better track of the performance of distributed strategies once they are installed, be responsive to operation issues, and have additional assurances that the anticipated water management benefits are fulfilled. In addition, this approach creates local jobs.
The additional costs associated with ensuring appropriate operation and maintenance staff may make a localized infrastructure program more expensive, but not necessarily unattainable when compared with alternative approaches; all infrastructure requires maintenance.
Resources for designing and implementing a localized infrastructure operation and maintenance program are linked below.
Read about Washington, D.C.'s Department of Energy and Environment stormwater management ordinance that requires onsite stormwater capture for certain development projects
10. Establish performance metrics and evaluation methods.
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.
Performance metrics vary according to the type of strategy employed and the type of data needed to evaluate whether the chosen strategy meets the community’s particular water management challenge. Communities are employing a variety of performance metrics and evaluation methods. The sections below provide some example metrics communities use to measure localized infrastructure strategies.
Metrics for all types of strategies
Metrics applicable to all types of localized infrastructure
Communities deploying localized infrastructure use a variety of ways to measure success. We’ve gathered a few examples:
Metrics for water use efficiency & reuse
Metrics applicable to water use efficiency & reuse
Communities deploying localized infrastructure to increase water use efficiency or reuse have a number of metrics available to them to measure success.
Metrics for green infrastructure
Metrics applicable to green infrastructure
Communities deploying green infrastructure to address stormwater and other water management challenges have a number of metrics available to them to measure success.
Metrics for climate change
Performance metrics can also vary according to the type of challenge a community is facing. A growing number of utilities and cities are identifying climate change as a key driver for their adoption of localized water infrastructure solutions, including the cities on the below map.
Click on a city to find out what metrics they’re using to measure success in mitigating and adapting to the impacts of climate change. To learn more about how communities facing the first and worst impact of climate change can build affordable, equitable and resilient infrastructure explore the Frontline Communities module.
Water Equity and Climate Resilience for Frontline Communities
Welcome to the WaterNow’s Frontline Communities module! This Toolkit module is for utility leaders nationwide facing the first, and worst, water challenges—from flooding, to drought to basement backups to water contamination and more—all of which are exacerbated by climate change.
The Water Equity and Climate Resilience for Frontline Communities module is designed to help leaders at all levels within drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater utilities and public works departments navigate these challenges, building their knowledge, skills and abilities to be changemakers and solve for these complex problems. Within this part of the TiR Toolkit you will find a set of resources curated to address the pressing needs of communities at the forefront of the struggle for clean, safe, healthy, and reliable water services for everyone.
Under each tab, you’ll find an overview of that topic, as well as in-depth resources for download, explanatory videos, and examples and case studies. You can sort theAll Resources library by “TIR Toolkit” if you’re looking for quick access Toolkit resources.
The Frontline Communities Module was developed with the support of our 2021 Emerging Leader Awardees, as well as an extraordinary assemblage of thought leaders working in the equity space who serve on WaterNow’s TiR Equity Advisory Group. We are very grateful for their engagement and support for this initiative. This is intended to be a living, evolving resource to best meet the needs of local water utility leaders, so your feedback and thoughts are critical. There are opportunities to provide your thoughts and comments throughout the Toolkit sections below, just keep an eye out for a “Click here” button. You can also share your feedback via the form linked below.
It’s estimated that over 2 million people across the U.S. lack clean water and proper sanitation, while hundreds of billions of gallons of untreated wastewater and stormwater are released as combined sewer overflows to surface waters each year, while polluted 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.
And while everyone, everywhere is affected by climate change, there are gradations of impact and, within the broader national context, numerous communities are facing the first, and worst, impacts of these water management challenges as shaped by climate change. These “frontline communities”—and the utilities that serve them—are on the frontlines of accessing safe, clean, affordable and equitable drinking water and wastewater and stormwater services. They are, not surprisingly, often economically disadvantaged and/or have a legacy of racial discrimination; frontline communities are far flung and can include cities, towns, villages, and neighborhoods, including in indigenous communities, Appalachia, the U.S.-Mexico border, California’s Central Valley, the Deep South, and in urban city-centers.
Click through the sub-sections below for one approach to defining frontline community, and to access an overview of how utilities and community groups are working to center frontline communitiesand to support them in meeting their water management challenges.
Defining “Frontline Community”
Frontline communities are those that experience “first and worst” consequences of underinvestment in water infrastructure, including poor drinking water quality, aging and overtaxed sewers, flooding and basement backups, and polluted stormwater runoff. All of these impacts are intensified by climate change. WaterNow views elevating and addressing the needs of frontline communities as a foundational water equity issue.
Frontline communities and the utilities that serve them generally fall into two categories:
(1) Critically under-resourced communities with water utilities or public works departments in urban, suburban and rural settings facing chronic, endemic issues related to limited staff capacity, investing in infrastructure, and keeping rates affordable; and
(2) Low income neighborhoods and/or communities of color served by better-resourced water utilities (usually in larger cities), but are disproportionately impacted by water challenges, such as neighborhood flooding, unaffordable rates, and/or face unique barriers to access to clean, safe water services.
The water utilities and agencies serving frontline communities face unique challenges in financing and deploying water strategies. Recognizing the reality of frontline communities is an important first step in meeting these communities’ pressing needs and advancing water equity at the local level.
Click on the links below to access additional resources about frontline water challenges. Click here to navigate to the Meeting Water Challenges with Localized Water Infrastructure section of the Equity and Climate Resilience for Frontline Communities module.
DigDeep and US Water Alliance report analyzing water and sanitation access challenges in the United States and offering a plan of action to overcome them.
Learn more about the Water Equity and Climate Resilience Caucus a national network of organizations working to address water equity and climate resilience.
Testimony to the the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’s Subcommittee on the Water Resources about water equity and why water infrastructure is an environmental justice issue.
King County’s 2020 Strategic Climate Action Plan Sustainable & Resilient Frontline Communities section, an example for others navigating impacts of climate change.
As concerns about water equity are rising to the fore, utilities and community organizations alike are working to center the issues facing frontline communities. In particular they are developing new policy pathways for to advance innovative water services and systems that are affordable, climate resilient, and more intentionally equitable.
Much of this action is taking place at the local and state levels. For example, at least two states have made policy findings that access to water is a human right which can be critically important for building political and regulatory will for follow-on policies that center frontline communities:
California’s declaration that access to water is a human right codified at Water Code Section 106.3 has helped build momentum around funding and regulatory pathways for addressing equity challenges.
Louisiana’s Legislature cites United Nation Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights General Comment No. 15, The Right to Water—which states the human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity and is a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights—as a fundamental policy driving the state’s efforts to provide safe, clean drinking water.
Additional state-level policies, resolutions, and plans related to drinking water can be found in River Network’s State Policy Hub—an online database of progressive water policies from around the country. And Western Resource Advocates State Water Policy & Program Database highlights several notable and exemplary state water policies and programs from around the country related to three issue areas: urban water conservation, water reuse and land use & water integration.
At the local level, utilities and community groups are on the ground implementing numerous strategies and programs to respond to frontline community needs and create more climate resilient water systems. We looked to the TiR Equity Advisory Group for just a few examples that offer a window into the wide range of strategies local organizations are spearheading:
Philadelphia Water Department uses an income-based rate structure to ensure water services are affordable for all households.
Aurora Water implements its “Aurora Water Cares” program to provide bill payment assistance to limited-income customers experiencing financial challenges.
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago’s “Green Infrastructure Call for Projects” is a pathway for the District to partner with other agencies and school districts in Cook County to build GSI in communities most in need; through its Space to Grow program, MWRD and local partners transform schoolyards into water infrastructure that captures rainwater addressing neighborhood flooding issues while also creating beautiful, vibrant and functional community.
The grassroots Water Champions program, a partnership between Northeast Ohio Regional Sewerage District, Cleveland Water, & CHN Housing Partners, connects at-risk populations to water and sewer bill assistance.
The California State Water Resources Control Board’s Safe and Affordable Funding for Equity and Resilience Program provides tools, funding sources, and regulatory authorities designed to ensure that the 1 million Californians who currently lack safe drinking water receive safe & affordable drinking water by funding operations and maintenance costs, cost of consolidating with larger system, provision of replacement water, and funding for administrators to run the small systems.
The Water Collaborative of Greater New Orleans works to ensure a lifetime of living, thriving, and loving water for every resident with actions meant to spur long-term change and create movement infrastructure.
Urban Conservancy is a New Orleans-based nonprofit organization leading and collaborating to strengthen the urban environment and local economy through equitable practices, policies and programs.
Southeast Rural Community Assistance Project, Inc. is a nonprofit organization focused on improving the quality of life for people living in the Southeast United States by bringing safe drinking water to low-income rural residents, sanitary water disposal, and structurally sound housing to 450,000+ households across a seven state region.
River Network empowers and unites people and communities to protect and restore rivers and other waters that sustain all life.
In addition, PolicyLink, a California NGO, launched the national Water Equity and Climate Resilience Caucus in 2018 to build a national network of organizations collaborating on water equity and climate resilience advocacy—centering low income and communities of color. With members across the country (see map below), including WaterNow, the Caucus builds a shared analysis and understanding of water challenges, advocates for policy strategies, and enables members to deliver on water equity 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 water bill assistance program, among many other achievements.
Do you know of utilities and community groups implementing strategies and programs to respond to frontline community needs and create more climate resilient water systems? Share those stories with us through the form linked below.
To access additional resources about organizations centering frontline communities click the linked resources below. Click here to navigate to the Meeting Water Challenges with Localized Water Infrastructure section of the Equity and Climate Resilience for Frontline Communities module.
Learn about Aurora Water Cares program to provide bill payment assistance to limited-income customers experiencing challenges in paying their water bills.
A multi-sector partnership building green schoolyards in Chicago to create vibrant neighborhood spaces and manage stormwater onsite to reduce flooding.
Learn more about Urban Conservancy's work to strengthen the urban environment and local economy in New Orleans with equitable practices, policies and programs.
We heard from our network of water leaders that one of the most important things they need, and have trouble finding, are stories about other communities tackling similar problems and their successes in deploying innovative, unconventional strategies. To address this need and make these resources readily available to local leaders, WaterNow created the Tap into Resilience Storymap. The Storymap is an easily searchable, interactive ArcGIS-based portal to case studies and solutions to make it quick and easy for water leaders to find communities across the country for inspiration and lessons learned. These real-world case studies are an essential resource for leaders at all levels within drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater utilities and public works departments. And there are a growing number of cities and utilities leading the way on implementing innovative solutions to more sustainably, affordably, and equitably manage their water resources.
For example, the Storymap features case studies from:
Aurora, Colorado, where one of WaterNow’s Emerging Leader Award recipients developed the city’s Low-Income Water Efficiency Program helps income-qualified households become more water efficient by replacing old fixtures with new, high efficiency models.
Madison, Wisconsin, where the city replaced all lead service lines in the community, most of which were on private property.
DC Water, where the utility partnered with the University of the District of Columbia to implement its green infrastructure program and create a new pathway for workforce development, the National Green Infrastructure Certification Program.
Atlanta, Georgia, where the Department of Watershed Management convened the Green Infrastructure Task Force to bring city agencies and partner organizations together to design green infrastructure projects that address neighborhood concerns and priorities.
You can also search the map by various metrics, such as:
Community type (population size, location)
Water management responsibilities (drinking water, stormwater or wastewater)
Meeting Water Challenges with “Localized Water Infrastructure”
Localized or onsite water infrastructure distributed widely across communities can provide sustainable, affordable and climate resilient alternatives to conventional infrastructure. These decentralized systems are able to address a wide range of water resource challenges from stretching water supplies, to capturing and managing runoff to enhancing water quality. Public investments in various types of onsite, localized strategies not only effectively meet drinking water, stormwater, and wastewater needs, but can also be more equitable when compared to conventional built approaches.
Sustainable, localized infrastructureprovides climate resilient and affordable solutions that can supplement and extend centralized systems and address a wide range of water management challenges across the One Water spectrum of drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater. These programs allow cities, towns, utilities and water resource agencies to pay for or subsidize decentralized solutions across many properties that they don’t own, but are key to sustainable water management in their communities. Localized strategies can effectively safeguard water supply and quality, protect ecosystems, and manage urban runoff—and provide multiple community benefits. Because by their nature localized strategies are distributed across the community, they provide significant opportunity for ensuring the just distribution of costs and benefits among water utility’s stakeholders. Watch the video below to learn more.
For instance, drinking water infrastructure is not just pipes, tanks and reservoirs. It also includes decentralized strategies, 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.
Stormwater infrastructureis not just deep tunnels and flood channels. It also includes bioswales, blue and green roofs, constructed wetlands, green streets, land conservation, permeable pavement, rainwater harvesting, and urban tree canopies.
Wastewater infrastructureis not just treatment plants and sewer lines. It also includes graywater reuse systems, onsite non-potable reuse systems, constructed wetlands, and private sewer lateral replacement.
Benefits of Localized Infrastructure to Frontline Communities
For frontline communities, where centralized infrastructure is aging, dilapidated or may not exist at all, localized strategies can serve a critical function in supplementing centralized systems. They can serve as more immediate solutions as longer-term centralized projects are built or rehabilitated, or ways to reduce the scope and cost of conventional infrastructure keeping rates more affordable and mitigating impacts on overtaxed systems.
Communities have already experienced the benefits of onsite, decentralized technologies and strategies working in tandem with conventional infrastructure that serve as solid examples for frontline communities working to upgrade their water systems:
DC Water’s Clean Rivers Project uses both deep tunnels and green stormwater infrastructure such as bioswales and rain gardens, i.e., a hybrid green-gray approach, to manage stormwater. The City’s investments in green infrastructure distributed throughout the community have reduced combined sewer overflows sooner than could have been achieved with a deep tunnel-only plan. Quicker improvements can be especially important for frontline communities disproportionately bearing the brunt of sewer overflows.
Spanish Fork, Utah, avoided the need to purchase costly new water rights and expand its water supply system to meet peak water demand by providing free smart irrigation controllersto residents to lessen the amount of drinking water used for outside landscaping. The water utility sets the devices to automatically water during non-peak hours, extending the life if its water supply infrastructure by substantially reducing use. A similar program would be beneficial for frontline communities because the localized infrastructure strategy—smart irrigation controllers—were provided at no direct-cost to participants and helped keep water rates low by avoiding the need for costly new centralized infrastructure.
Tucson Water’s water conservation programs provide income qualified residents with free high-efficiency toilets and zero-interest loans to purchase rainwater harvesting systems. These programs not only promote equity by reducing residents’ water bills for essential needs, but also enable the utility to keep water rates low for everyone by deferring, and possibly avoiding, the need to expand system capacity.
New York City’s Cloudburst Resiliency program, being piloted in Southeast Queens, uses neighborhood-scale stormwater infrastructure, such as basketball courts that double as stormwater detention basins, to supplement sewer buildouts. These onsite systems act as a buffer for storms that exceed the capacity of the sewer system. And they provide much-needed upgrades to neighborhood recreation areas offering revitalized spaces for residents to gather when it’s not raining.
In addition to these water management benefits, localized infrastructure provides much needed co-benefits to frontline communities, including:
Increased engagement between utilities and their communities
Localized options are also cost-effective in the long term because, for example, green infrastructure such as urban trees can actually appreciate in value over time unlike centralized systems.
To access additional resources about localized water infrastructure and the benefits of these solutions click the linked materials below. Click here to navigate to the Equitable & Affordable Water Infrastructure Investments section of the Equity and Climate Resilience for Frontline Communities module.
Two-page overview of WaterNow paper examining 13 programs in 12 cities and 9 states and finds noteworthy gains in each test case from investments in smart, efficient distributed water infrastructure.
Our partners at the Pacific Institute and collaborator Professor Bob Wilkinson are developing a framework for incorporating multiple benefits of water projects into decision-making.
Direct Installations and Other Strategies to Implement Localized Infrastructure on Private Properties in Frontline Communities
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 motivate and incentivize private property owners, or caretakers, to participate and implement these strategies and technologies.
Utilities and water resource agencies serving frontline communities face additional challenges incentivizing adoption of localized strategies. Low-income households typically do not participate in rebate programs because they cannot pay the upfront cost of appliances, green infrastructure, or other onsite systems. In addition, the processing times associated with reimbursements can be prohibitively burdensome. And renters are often not eligible for incentive programs.
Direct installation programs can overcome these challenges, lower the likelihood of water debt and water shutoffs, and foster more equitable utilities. Utilities in a growing number of communities are using direct installation strategies to implement localized water infrastructure solutions:
In 2019, Westminster, Colorado, launched a pilot program to provide no-cost water fixture upgrades for residents in affordable, multi-family housing. Analysis indicated that a 48% reduction in indoor water use across 72 residential units translated into a savings of $65,000 on water and sewer bills over a year for Maiker Housing Partners, the local Housing Authority that owns and manages the property. These utility bill savings are then likely to translate into greater access to affordable housing in Westminster—as the costs to the housing authority responsible for paying the water bills go down, the ability to add more units goes up.
Over the past 20 years, Seattle Public Utilities has provided6,800 free toilets to low-income residents in Seattle. To get the word out about this direct install program, SPU has dedicated outreach and marketing that includes direct marketing for new customers, fliers, brochures, and attendance at resource fairs and other community events. A component of its comprehensive water use efficiency programs, SPU’s direct install program has helped shrink per person water consumption by 44% from 151 to 85 gallons per day.
Spanish Fork, Utah, has begun implementing an innovative water conservation program to install free smart irrigation controllers for residential customers to reduce pressurized outdoor irrigation and stagger watering times to lower peak demand. The City has already seen peak demand reductions and a 17% reduction in outdoor irrigation for homes with smart irrigation controllers installed.
Among its many conservation and efficiency programs, Aurora, Colorado’s, Water Low-Income Water Efficiency Program helps low-income households become more water efficient by replacing old fixtures with new, high efficiency models. Since it fully launched in 2012, the LIWEP program has installed over 500 toilets, 150 showerheads and 300 faucet aerators in low-income household and saved ~21.1 million gallons of water.
For the past two decades, Tucson Water has prioritized conservation over traditional sources of supply through residential and commercial financial incentives and free programs for income-qualified households. In particular, to address equity and affordability issues, Tucson Water provides limited-income individuals and families with free high-efficiency toilets and grants (up to $400) and zero-interest loans (up to $2,000) for rainwater harvesting systems. The program has resulted in the installation of 53,000 high-efficiency toilet and urinals, as well as 2,000 rainwater harvesting and gray water systems, among many other achievements.
Denver Water has pledged to replace all of the lead service lineson private properties within its service area at no direct cost to customers. The utility estimates that there are 64,000-84,000 properties that may have lead service lines across its large service area. While lead service line replacement is not traditionally considered a “direct installation” program, it is included here because Denver’s program prioritizes communities who are most vulnerable and at-risk from lead exposure, particularly infants and children as well as underserved neighborhoods and the initiative is employing the same basic building blocks as other direct installation programs; rather than require landowners to put the money upfront and do the work and receive a rebate, the utility is taking on these roles itself.
Other strategies frontline communities can use to implement localized infrastructure to combat water supply, stormwater, flooding, and other water management challenges, include grants, bill credits, and vouchers. For example, the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority Community Adaptation Programprovides grants of $10,000 to $25,000 to property owners in the Gentilly Resilience District to build green infrastructure and manage stormwater onsite.
No matter the type of incentive used, robust outreach and education to the community is essential to implementing any localized water infrastructure program. Key tools for community engagement include:
If the target population includes communities where languages other than English are frequently spoken, utilities and their implementation partners should provide customer service in commonly spoken languages in the community. If possible, bilingual staff should also be present for audits and installations to communicate with participants. WaterNow Project Accelerators in Santa Rosa, California, and Walnut Valley Water District, California, are working to operationalize these practices in their communities.
To access additional resources about ways to implement localized water infrastructure click the linked materials below. Click here to navigate to the Equitable & Affordable Water Infrastructure Investments section of the Equity and Climate Resilience for Frontline Communities module.
City of Westminster, Colorado, launched a pilot program to provide no-cost water fixture upgrades for residents in affordable, multi-family housing that is already saving water and money.
Workshop on communicating with ratepayers that provides actionable strategies and helps water leaders to begin to build a vision around communications for their utility
River Network's Equitable Infrastructure Toolkit, a one-stop shop for guidance on identifying factors that affect water affordability, and an overview of water infrastructure funding and financing.
A step-by-step guide and curated list of external technical and financial resources for flood and stormwater management designed with local decision makers in mind.
Strategies for Avoiding Gentrification When Implementing Localized Water Infrastructure
It is crucial that when communities are implementing localized water infrastructure, especially green stormwater infrastructure, they ensure these water system improvements do not lead to unintended consequences such as gentrification and neighborhood displacement. The below provides an introduction to strategies for avoiding these unintended consequences.
Community ownership of the benefits created by GSI investments, e.g., a property tax freeze or credit for seniors and fixed income households to prevent them from facing housing insecurity due to property value increases
Intentional consideration of impacts on neighborhood renters, both residential and commercial
Ensuring jobs created by the GSI investments are filled by local, neighborhood residents
The Urban Waters Learning Network’s Equitable Development for Urban Waters Understanding Gentrification and Preventing Displacement story map outlines the unintended impacts of “sustainable” development in urban neighborhoods and provides strategies for “equitable development” i.e., “greening without increasing displacement pressures on already stressed urban communities.” This Urban Waters Learning Network resources also includes case studies and sample equitable development plans.
As described by The Water Collaborative of Greater New Orleans, green infrastructure investments in New Orleans has not led to 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.
This is only one example of a community navigating these nuanced questions. WaterNow’s research to further inform this section of the Frontline Communities module is ongoing, and an update to this section is coming soon. To help us in our research, do you know of a community successfully implementing localized water infrastructure and avoiding gentrification and displacement? Share it with us through the form linked below!
Consolidation and Regionalization to Support Health and Safety in Rural Communities
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.
“Consolidation” means that two or more legal entities merge and operate the under the same governance, management, and financial structures. “Regionalization,” on the other hand, does not combine entities, but is a way for utilities to pool their resources, buying power, and technical expertise, e.g., shared billing services, operator services, or specialized equipment, gaining economies of scale a single utility could not achieve on its own.
Organizations like Southeast Rural Community Assistance Project can help rural communities find the best solution to fit their needs and values. For example, through its Technical Assistance program, SERCAP has helped communities evaluate when consolidation is an appropriate solution, including for the Village of Hobson, Virginia, where residents were without adequate indoor plumbing. With SERCAP’s support, Hobson was able to build new homes and connect them to an adequate water system operated by a neighboring water utility. To learn more about Hobson’s story, watch the video below.
Do you have an example of a successful utility consolidation or regionalization project? Share it with us through the form linked below!
While coupling investment in these foundational systems with investments in localized infrastructure can supplement centralized systems by making them more climate resilient and affordable, consolidation and regionalization are complex strategies that frontline communities may need to consider to meet their water management challenges. Providing a full set of resources and guidance on consolidation and regionalization are beyond the scope of WaterNow’s TiR Toolkit. To access resources specific to consolidation and regionalization check out the materials linked below.
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.
There are a number of strategies available to utilities to avoid shutting off water to households in frontline communities. These include primarily:
Investing in water use efficiency, conservation, and other localized infrastructure implemented via grant or direct install programs that enable households to lower their water use and reduce their bills
Customer assistance programs
Tiered rate structures
Community liaison programs
Adjustments to billing systems to reduce billing mistakes
Improved customer outreach
Jump to the full Avoiding Water Shutoffssection below to learn more about these strategies, find utility success stories where they have prevented shutoffs, and access additional resources for preventing shutoffs.
Equitable & Affordable Water Infrastructure Investments
Water utilities serving frontline communities not only face water management challenges, but also encounter difficulties in accessing funding and financing mechanisms to invest in needed water infrastructure upgrades. Frontline communities’ special challenges accessing the funding required to invest in vital water infrastructure range from severely reduced federal financial support for local water systems over the years, to financially distressed rate bases that cannot afford the cost of needed infrastructure, declining populations leading to a smaller number of customers within the utility service area, and/or lack of internal capacity and expertise to apply for the grant and support programs that are available. The COVID-19 pandemic intensified these already pressing issues as revenue losses hit urban areas hard.
Federal and State Grant and Loan Options for Frontline Communities
Frontline communities often do not have the financial capacity to borrow as needed to invest in either conventional or innovative water infrastructure. Poor credit ratings may make the cost of borrowing prohibitive, or financial challenges may prevent the community from being attractive to investors. There are a significant number of federal and state grant and loan programs available to cities, towns, utilities and water resource agencies to invest in sustainable, resilient water infrastructure, notwithstanding the forty-year decline in federal support. Key opportunities include the following:
American Rescue Plan Act fundscan be used for a broad range of projects that improve access to clean drinking water, improve wastewater and stormwater infrastructure systems, and local governments have wide latitude to identify investments in water and sewer infrastructure that are of the highest priority for their own communities, which may include projects on privately-owned infrastructure.
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—including green infrastructure and water other infrastructure improvements. Section 108 financing provides an avenue for communities to undertake larger, more costly projects, where they may have limited resources to invest in upfront.
EPA’s Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grantsprovides grants for projects designed to address infrastructure needs for combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, and for stormwater management, and prioritizes municipalities in financially distressed communities.
State-administered State Revolving Fund loanprograms offer subsidized financing options including principal forgiveness, zero interest loans, negative interest loans, and, grants. Eligibility for these subsidized options depends on each state’s SRF policies, but is often available to small and disadvantaged communities. Additional subsidies may also be available for green infrastructure, water and energy efficiency improvements, and other environmentally innovative activities that qualify for a state’s Green Project Reserve.
For utilities in Western states, the Bureau of Reclamation’s WaterSMARTprogram provides grants for water use efficiency, conservation, and drought resiliency projects. WaterNow offers pro bono supportfor communities interested in apply for a WaterSMART grant.
EPA maintains a Water Finance Clearinghouseas a web‐based portal to help communities locate information and resources to assist in making informed decisions for their drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure needs. The database can be filtered by funding type, eligible uses, eligible applicants, and community type, e.g., small, medium, large.
Municipalities navigating Clean Water Act compliance questions, including funding and financing options, can also get direct assistance from theEPA Municipal Ombudsmanwho will coordinate with EPA offices to assist communities in accessing EPA resources on financing, technical assistance, and integrated planning.
Many of these low-cost financing options are only available to publicly owned water systems. While some communities turn to “public-private partnerships” as a way to pay for infrastructure improvements, there are a range of public-private partnerships available to water utilities, and the precise meaning of “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 here.
To access additional resources about ways to fund and finance water infrastructure investments in frontline communities click the linked resources below. Click here to navigate to the Building Capacity Through Partnerships section of the Equity and Climate Resilience for Frontline Communities module.
High-level framework to identify the type of public-private partnership best suited to a public water utility’s needs, and best practices for evaluating service arrangements.
Inter-generational equity 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 equity 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.
The same approach is available for investments in longer-lived distributed water infrastructure as an additional path to ensuring inter-generational equity in frontline communities. In many cases, decentralized green options can be more cost-effective than expensive centralized systems in providing enhanced water supply, sanitation and stormwater management. Public borrowing to put these long-term solutions in place—just as a utility would for centralized systems—spreads the costs of these investments across current and future ratepayers and allows the utility to bring these more equitable, resilient strategies to scale. Equitable water management portfolios should, thus, include distributed solutions as capital projects that can be paid for the same way as centralized systems.
For example, if a utility with a $70 million annual budget were considering investing $10 million in a major direct installation program to provide high efficiency appliances for income qualified renters and homeowners, the utility would have to raise rates 14% to pay for the program out of its annual operating budget. If instead the utility debt-financed the program and paid for it over 20 years, less than a 1% rate increase would be needed to implement the same $10 million direct installation program—a much more affordable approach. At the same time, the utility customers eligible for the program can likely keep their rates lowbecause they’ll be using less water as a result of the appliance upgrades lessening the impact of the 1% rate increase even further.
To access additional resources about ways to ensure intergenerational equity in frontline communities by investing in localized infrastructure click the linked resources below. Click here to navigate to the Building Capacity Through Partnerships section of the Equity and Climate Resilience for Frontline Communities module.
River Network's Equitable Infrastructure Toolkit, a one-stop shop for guidance on identifying factors that affect water affordability, and an overview of water infrastructure funding and financing.
Water utilities across the country are increasingly, and successfully, turning to partnerships with community groups, NGOs, and other cities and utilities to build capacity and advance greater water equity in their communities.
Click through the sub-sections below to learn how to identify main capacity challenges facing utilities serving frontline communities, how to identify local partners who can help overcome those challenges, and whatbest practices to follow when building capacity through partnerships. Partnerships can also include “public-private partnerships,” and the precise meaning of “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. Check out the Partnership vs. Privatization sections of the Toolkit to explore the most common types of public-private partnerships formed in the water sector and several key considerations for determining whether to enter into any of these arrangements.
Identifying Internal Utility Capacity Challenges
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:
Historical placement of infrastructure such that certain neighborhoods or communities within the utility service area are disproportionately impacted by water challenges
Limited staff
Lack of access to technical resources
Hard-to-reach populations, e.g., non-English speakers or renters
Inexperience in community outreach and education
Lack of expertise in designing, operating and maintaining distributed, localized infrastructure
Product Quality – the provides a level of service that meet or exceed full compliance with regulatory and reliability requirements and is consistent with customer, public health, ecological, and economic needs
Customer Satisfaction – the utility provides reliable, responsive, and affordable services in line with explicit service levels based on customer feedback
Stakeholder Understanding and Support – the utility engenders understanding and support from all stakeholders (i.e., customers, oversight bodies, community and watershed interests, regulatory bodies, etc.) and actively promotes an appreciation of the true value of water and water services
Financial Viability – the utility understands and plans for the full life-cycle cost of utility operations and value of water resources, and establishes and maintains an effective balance between long-term expenses and operating revenues
Operational Optimization – the utility ensures ongoing, timely, cost-effective, reliable, and sustainable performance in all facets of operations to serve public health and protect the environment
Employee and Leadership Development – the utility recruits, develops, and retains a workforce that is competent, motivated, adaptive, and safety-focused; it establishes a collaborative, participatory organization; and promotes sharing of institutional knowledge as well as professional growth among a multi-generational workforce
Enterprise Resiliency – the utility leadership and staff work together, and in coordination with external partners, to anticipate, respond to, and avoid problems by, among other things, proactively identifying, assessing, and establishing tolerance levels for a range of risks
Infrastructure Strategy and Planning – the utility understands the condition and costs associated with critical infrastructure assets, and plans investments consistent with community needs and priorities, anticipated growth, and system reliability goals while building in a robust set of adaptive management strategies
Community Sustainability – the utility is actively collaborating with local partners, including other public agencies and community groups, to identify and achieve community values
Water Resource Sustainability – the utility engages in long-term integrated planning recognizing the utility’s role in the complete water cycle and One Water management, plans for water resource variability including extreme events like floods and droughts, and protects current and future customer, community, and ecological water-related needs
Assessing how your utility performs in each of these attributes is a useful way to identify internal capacity gaps and areas of focus for outside support. With these considerations in mind, utilities will be well-positioned to identify partners who can add value and put them on the path towards building needed capacities.
To access additional resources about identifying capacity challenges click the linked resources below. Click here to navigate to the Avoiding Water Shutoffs section of the Equity and Climate Resilience for Frontline Communities module.
Identifying Partners Who Can Add Value
Utilities no longer need to go it alone. Partnerships with community groups, NGOs, and other cities and utilities can effectively engage the public, extend and supplement limited utility resources, and advance the goal of an equitable water future for everyone.
There are multiple avenues for utilities to establish trust-based partnerships, including:
Getting out into the community and building personal relationships with trusted community leaders that can grow into collaborative, mutually beneficial partnerships
Participating in community events to put a personal face to the utility which can sometimes be seen as an institutional black box
Creating citizen advisory groups to actively involve the community in utility decision-making
Establishing the utility as an Anchor Institution—an organization rooted in a specific location that has a long-term interest in the economic and social vitality of the surrounding community
Successful partnerships in frontline communities throughout the U.S. provide models for others navigating drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater management challenges:
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewerage District, Cleveland Water & CHN Housing Partners’ grassroots Water Champions program connects at-risk populations to water and sewer bill assistance, and helps build public understanding of water quality issues and the value of water and enhances the utility’s understanding of community needs
Aurora, Colorado, with a rapidly growing population has determined that wiser use of existing water supply has a central role in meeting future water demand. To that end, it has implemented the Aurora Water Low-Income Water Efficiency Program, a partnership with Mile High Youth Corps that replaces old water-wasting fixtures in low income households with new, high efficiency models
As part of Atlanta’s development of its GI Strategic Plan, the city’s Department of Watershed Management collaborated with a nonprofit, the Partnership for Southern Equity, to convene a series of stakeholder workshops to consider potential unintended consequences of green infrastructure on disadvantaged communities, and as a result Atlanta’s strategic plan expressly instructs that green infrastructure be developed and implemented equitably based on shared values
Watch the video below to hear from 4 more utilities and communities engaged in powerful partnerships that helped build more equitable and resilient water systems.
To access additional resources about identifying partners that can add value click the linked resources below. Click here to navigate to the Avoiding Water Shutoffssection of the Equity and Climate Resilience for Frontline Communities module.
Best Practices for Building Trusting Partnerships
To be successful and long lasting, partnerships between water systems and community groups depend on core operating strategies such as robust stakeholder engagement and participation in program design, increasing transparency, and open lines of communication.
Based on interviews with successful community and water utility partnerships, WaterNow and one of our key partners, River Network, have developed a set of 8 best practices for building trusting partnerships:
Prioritize Transparency and Accountability
Restore Community Confidence
Deepen Community Understanding of Utilities Roles and Responsibilities
Highlight Shared Goals to Leverage Mutual Benefits
Include the Community as Part of Utility Decision Making
Adopt a Community-Facing Orientation
Cultivate Long-Term Community Relationships with Intention
Build from Personal to More Formalized Relationships
Many of these best practices also apply to partnerships between utilities or other public agencies, including dedication to honesty and transparency, recognizing shared goals, and water utility innovation. But when forming relationships among governmental agencies utilities serving frontline communities will also need to consider ways to:
Share upfront cost of project construction
Pool labor and operation & maintenance resources
Coordinate with other already planned capital projects such as street repairs
Integrate water, sewer, and stormwater planning
For example, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago enters into “Intergovernmental Agreements” with municipalities it partners with to build green infrastructure to set out the scope, design, construction, and operation and maintenance of the green infrastructure projects MWRD helps fund.
To access additional resources about best practices for trust-based partnerships click the linked resources below. Click here to navigate to the Avoiding Water Shutoffs section of the Equity and Climate Resilience for Frontline Communities module.
Peer call on how strong relationships between local water utilities and community organizations are built and maintained to work together for clean and safe water and healthy rivers.
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 Building Blocks of Trust: Creating Authentic and Equitable Relationships Between Community Organizations and Water Utilities, we share what we learned from these successful partnerships and hope that you can use their lessons learned to catalyze even more of these vital partnerships for healthier rivers and communities.
One of the building blocks of trust is the need to Deepen Community Understanding of Utility Roles and Responsibilities. Designed to fulfill this building block, the Community Water Academy provides water managers and the communities they serve a forum to better understand local issues and needs as one step to creating and maintaining equitable and durable partnerships. Initiated by utilities or community members who want to develop relationships with their customers or water utility, the Community Water Academy can bring interested parties together and open up lines of communication.
Through Community Water Academy workshops, water system customers deepen their understanding of local water systems and water managers learn how collaboration between stakeholders (including customers, elected leaders, water system staff, and community organizations and leaders) can support a well-governed water system capable of meeting community expectations.
The purpose of this guide is to provide an accessible framework and actionable steps for creating a successful Community Water Academy in your community to strengthen the local water system and build long-term partnerships.
Is an Academy a Good Fit for Your Community?
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.
CONSIDERATIONS
Are key players willing to engage in the Community Water Academy? Key players include the utility, customers, elected officials, and community organizations and leaders. When all parties are involved and have access to the same information, they can better understand the reasoning behind decisions and actions. This transparency reduces skepticism, fosters trust, and minimizes potential conflicts. By engaging and communicating with each other, stakeholders can leverage their respective strengths, expertise, and resources to achieve common goals. Because the purpose of the Community Water Academy is to create and maintain a durable and equitable partnership between the community and the local water utility, it is crucial that at a minimum both the water local utility and community members are willing to engage in the workshop development and execution.
Are you experiencing difficulty making contact with water utility staff? Contacting water utility staff can be challenging for a variety of reasons, including understaffing, high demand, limited communication channels, and just not knowing where to start and who to contact. If you are looking for guidance on this specific issue, please refer to the Equitable Water Infrastructure Toolkit which provides guidance on contacting water utility staff.
WHAT IF A UTILITY OR COMMUNITY PARTNER DOES NOT WANT TO ENGAGE?
Assess the reasons – it is important to understand the reasons behind the reluctance or refusal to participate. Are there specific concerns or past experiences that led to this? Gather as much information as you can to find alternative ways to engage and address those concerns.
Clearly communicate– articulate the objectives of the Community Water Academy and invite the reluctant party to discuss the workshops and any concerns they may have.
Engage allies and influencers – identify parties who have a positive relationship with the reluctant party and seek their support as an intermediary. Encourage these allies and influencers to advocate for the importance of the Community Water Academy and trust building exercises for the long-term health of community relationships and the local water system.
Explore alternative avenues if the utility or community does not want to be involved– As a Community Water Academy threshold, both parties should be involved. However, if all efforts to engage either party are unsuccessful, explore alternative avenues for getting closer to the goals.
a) Consider whether fresh faces and/or leadership change can help move past previous missteps. When there is a leadership change or new staff, try approaching again.
b) Consider using other trust-building practices first to repair trust and forge relationships that could set the stage for a Community Water Academy down the road:
→ Acknowledge that trust and/or interest is low and is worth rebuilding
→ Identify ways to bring the utility and community to a shared table for constructive conversations including use of a 3rd party facilitator
After you determine a Community Water Academy is a good fit, and both community organizations and the utility are on-board, it is time to tailor the Community Water Academy to meet your community’s needs, priorities, and shared desired outcomes. A well-designed workshop has the power to bring people together, open the lines of communication, align goals, and create a supportive environment where ideas and pathways can be safely and effectively brainstormed and communicated. In this section, we will discuss key elements to contemplate when crafting your own bespoke Community Water Academy.
ASSEMBLE YOUR WORKSHOP PLANNING TEAM
The workshop planning team should be representative, equitable, and inclusive. Such a team ensures that diverse community perspectives, experiences, and expertise are brought to the table. At the same time, it’s important to strike a balance and avoid making the planning team so large that decision-making and effective communication is impeded. This balance will help ensure that the planning team remains small enough so that activities like regular planning activities remain manageable while being large enough to include various representative perspectives. Early on in the planning, the team should discuss and decide how decisions will be made, e.g., by consensus, majority vote, plurality (similar to majority vote but the option with the most votes wins), or group input plus one key decision-maker. Additionally, having team members who are able to meet regularly and be present during the workshop is important for efficient coordination, timely decision-making, and effective implementation of plans.
BUILD YOUR WORKSHOP CONTENT
The workshop will build trust when it is designed to address topline community concerns and priorities related to water and the utility. Oftentimes, community members do not feel heard or that their concerns do not move beyond perfunctory platitudes. Your workshop participants, who will be primarily community members, want to see and hear that community concerns are heard, understood, and are being thoughtfully considered. Demonstrating that you recognize these concerns is an important step to engage participants in the Community Water Academy process. To identify these concerns, consult with your assembled planning group and compile the topline community concerns.
Participants come to the workshop with varying levels of knowledge. Therefore, it is helpful to provide some foundational information on water systems and utilities.
As you go through this process, brainstorm who might be appropriate speakers to invite to your Community Water Academy.
Because of time constraints, a snapshot on the above topics is sufficient so long as the information is delivered in a clear and concise manner that avoids jargon and “industry-speak” and allows participants to easily digest and use it. It is also recommended that these technical issues be framed around how the topics intersect with residents’ daily lives. Also, keep in mind that adults learn best when they are given the opportunity to interact with the material being presented. Find as many ways as possible to make your Academy interactive and fun for your participants. This not only helps participants learn, it can also be an important way to build camaraderie, relationships, and trust.
DEVELOP WORKSHOP MATERIALS
Every community is unique with its own set of challenges, strengths, cultural nuances, specific needs, and desired outcomes. The attached Appendix includes example resources and handouts that can be customized to enhance relatability and relevance for your community and lead to a more impactful workshop. Effective and inclusive community outreach to advertise the Community Water Academy is also crucial for connecting with a diverse and representative audience. Outreach efforts should be intentional, considering factors such as locations of outreach, timing, and preferred communication channels to reach all interested community members.
WORKSHOP PLANNING AND LOGISTICS
As with any event, executing a Community Water Academy includes various logistics that need to be thought out and planned in order to maximize the potential of the Community Water Academy for your community. When walking through the logistics, it is important to consider the needs of all to minimize people or groups feeling marginalized.
You will need to begin planning your Community Water Academy at least two months before the date of the workshop. As detailed below, during this planning process you will meet with your assembled team of workshop planners and go over the considerations listed within this guide, secure a physical venue if needed, draft a concept outline that can be shared with potential panelists to secure their availability, develop the Community Water Academy presentations and materials, and conduct outreach to invite and encourage community members to attend.
Step 3.1 – Pre-Planning
Assemble Planning Team
Identify community and community contacts
Set regular planning meetings, e.g., on a bi-weekly basis, to ensure that tasks are managed in a timely manner and that any issues that come up can be addressed
Research community water systems and create a municipal profile (Appendix A)
Arrange for a group prep call with community contacts to discuss municipal profile, community concerns and objectives, other community contacts, potential speakers, and possible dates
Draft Community Water Academy outline based on template (Appendix B)
Circulate draft Community Water Academy outline with community contacts and revised based on feedback
Invite Community Water Academy speakers
Finalize Community Water Academy dates
Identify type of workshop
Confirm speakers; Set calendar invites and send to speakers and community contacts
Step 3.2 – Planning & Program Development
Draft community workshop invites and share with community contacts; revise based on feedback
See Step 2 above for some strategies for reaching community members
An example invite is included (Appendix D)
Develop registration system for participants
Determine what, if any, incentives you will provide
Distribute invites to community based on the best methods the team identifies
Draft presentation slides for Community Water Academy
Share draft slides with community contacts and revise based on feedback
Draft interactive/small group exercises (Appendix G)
Polls
Mini World Cafe
Worksheets with discussion prompts
Draft Community Water Academy handouts, including evaluations (Appendix H)
Draft initial run of show (Appendix C)
Share run of show and handouts, and revise based on feedback
Arrange for a group prep call with community contacts and speakers to discuss the run of show, handouts, slides, and in-room and virtual logistics/tech check
What equipment will be required for in-room participants?
What online requirements are needed for virtual participants?
Determine table set up for small group exercises
Follow up on invites and number of registered participants
Finalize slides and handouts for Community Water Academy and distribute
Mail physical copies to community contacts, if requested
Finalize run of show and distribute to speakers and community contacts
Conduct a practice run-through of Community Water Academy with speakers
Step 3.3 – Host Community Water Academy
Set up room or online platform
Assemble 30 minutes prior to the Community Water Academy to conduct last round tech check and go over any questions
Conduct Community Water Academy
Step 3.4 – Post-Community Water Academy
Review Community Water Academy evaluations
Compile and save feedback for guidance on future workshops
Check in with community contacts regarding the Community Water Academy
Discuss how feedback will inform next Community Water Academy and ongoing partnerships and collaboration between the utility and community
Report back on next steps to participants and identify opportunities to stay engaged
One way to stay in touch after the Community Water Academy is to organize a community committee that meets regularly to follow up with each other and key players. We hope that the process of developing and hosting your own Community Water Academy created and/or strengthened strong authentic and equitable relationships between local water utility and the communities it serves. These relationships, built on trust, open communication, and mutual understanding, are essential for collaborative problem solving and sustainable solutions to water related challenges.
Compilation of Community Water Academy Guide Templates
(A)Municipal Profile – compiled background information on the community and utility to inform workshop development
(B) Outline – concept outline to share with stakeholders and potential speakers
(C) Run of Show – developed outline with speakers, breaks, and timing cues to share with stakeholders
(D) Invite/Flyer – advertisement for the Community Water Academy
(E) Sign-In Sheets – registration sheets to save participants’ contact information
(F) Public Workshop Agenda – agenda to share with participants and the public
(G) Discussion Worksheet – prompts and exercises for participant discussion
(H) Evaluation Form – post-workshop evaluation form to collect feedback, assess relevance and engagement, and identify areas of improvement and follow-up
Households in the United States have experienced considerable increases in the cost of water and wastewater services over the past decades. According to a 2020Boston University study, water and sewer costs are the fastest-growing category of household costs. Since 2010, water and sewer service costs grew by 4.83% per year. A 2019 study byThe Thurgood Marshall Institute at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fundfound that rising water rates are most likely to impact communities of color. With these increases in cost, shutting off water service has become a standard utility practice for addressing non-payment challenges.
To be clear, no utility desires or seeks to shut off critical water services for any customers. Shutoffs are typically regarded as an authority required to ensure a utility’s fiscal health as a “last resort” for addressing customers far in arrears on bill payment. The federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic included creation of the first federally-funded water-related customer assistance program (theLow Income Household Water Assistance Program) with $1.1 billion available as of 2021 to help those struggling to pay their water and sewer bills. However, it is uncertain whether this federal assistance will available going forward. Local utilities—especially those serving at-risk communities—will therefore continue to be on the frontlines of providing clean, safe, reliable water, wastewater, and stormwater services while also ensuring those services are affordable for everyone. The challenge for these utilities is how best to address non-payment challenges without resorting to service shutoffs which can have devastating impacts, particularly in hard hit frontline communities.
Adjustments to billing systems to reduce billing mistakes
Improved customer outreach
Successfully putting one or more of these measures in place means evaluating income characteristics of utility customers and the impact on revenues that would result from assistance programs, partnering with local community groups, and integrating water assistance programs with other programs such as housing, food, or energy assistance.
Implementing these strategies are not without their challenges, however. Potential barriers to establishing robust alternatives to water shutoffs include:
Lack of funding
Legal restrictions on rate structures and prohibitions on using rates to subsidize one class of customer with revenues from another class of customer
Service areas with a large number of low-income ratepayers that would qualify for assistance programs with little buffer to spread the cost of across ratepayers
Lack of economies of scale for small utilities with high per-customer costs
In addition, who owns the water utility can be a factor in affordability. Surveys of the 500 largest water providers in the U.S. have found that publicly owned systems charge lower rates that are more affordable compared with privately owned systems. In 2021, 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.” Click here to read more about the factors influencing the difference in rates between publicly and privately owned utilities.
Resources for overcoming these challenges as well as additional resources about avoiding water shutoffs are linked below. Click here to navigate to the What are Frontline Communities? section of the Equity and Climate Resilience for Frontline Communities module.
Tool developed by the Nicholas Institute's Water Policy Program to provide a clearer picture of how affordable water services are in the United States.
City of Westminster, Colorado, launched a pilot program to provide no-cost water fixture upgrades for residents in affordable, multi-family housing that is already saving water and money.
River Network's Equitable Infrastructure Toolkit, a one-stop shop for guidance on identifying factors that affect water affordability, and an overview of water infrastructure funding and financing.
Keeping rates affordable and avoiding water shutoffs are no easy tasks. But utilities throughout the U.S. have found success in meeting these dual objectives. Their programs serve as helpful models for others facing affordability and non-payment challenges.
In 2015, Philadelphia’s city council authorized creation of Philadelphia Water Department’s Tiered Assistance Program. Launched in 2017, this first-in-the-nation income-based rate structure was established in response to growing unaffordability for nearly 40% of PWD’s customers and shutoffs disproportionately impacting black and Latinx households. In a complete shift away from its prior approach, Philadelphia’s TAP program provides customers that need help paying their bills before they fall behind and go into debt. The program works by setting a resident’s bill as percentage of their household income and size rather than water consumption. So households with a monthly income of 150% of the federal poverty level, e.g., about $3,075 (as of 2017) for a family of 4—or those with a special hardship are eligible to enroll. For example, a family of 4 with ~$12,300 annual income would have a monthly water bill of $20.50.
Aurora Water createdAurora Water Caresto provide bill payment assistance so that limited-income customers experiencing challenges don’t need to worry about whether they can take a shower, do laundry or wash the dishes. Under this initiative, homeowners and renters who are past due on their bills can receive up to $125 in assistance once a year, with a limit of four total awards. The program is funded by individuals’ donations as well as one-time CARES Act funds provided to the city as part of the federal COVID-relief package. To implement the program, the utility partners with a local non-profit that runs the day-to-day operations including processing applications and determining eligibility. This partnership has been a staple of the success of Aurora Water Cares. Other foundations for success include the utility’s coordination with energy assistance programs and internal billing system with flexibility to accept donations. To evaluate the program’s impact, Aurora Water uses a data dashboard to measure shutoffs avoided and number of participants. Watch the video below to learn about how the Aurora Water Cares program got started by WaterNow’s 2021 Emerging Leader Elizabeth Gillitzer-Gallardo.
As one of the poorest large cities in the country, Cleveland faces challenges around affordability and access to water and sanitation resources. There are also gaps in community members’ awareness of existing affordability programs. The Water Champions Program, a grassroots program to connect at-risk populations to water and sewer bill assistance, grew out of local discussions, through the US Water Alliance’s 2018 Equity Task Force, about how to meet these challenges. A local NGO that provides housing assistance, and administers water and sewer utility affordability programs, CHN Housing Partners is also implementing the two-year pilot of the Water Champions Program with primary financial support from the water utility, the City of Cleveland Division of Water, and the regional wastewater and stormwater utility, the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. The Water Champions program seeks to act as a bridge between community members and utilities, focused on water and sewer affordability programs within the City of Cleveland. Read the full Water Champions case study here.
To access additional resources about communities that have successfully avoided water shutoffs click the linked resources below. Click here to navigate to the What are Frontline Communities? section of the Equity and Climate Resilience for Frontline Communities module.
City of Westminster, Colorado, launched a pilot program to provide no-cost water fixture upgrades for residents in affordable, multi-family housing that is already saving water and money.
Materials are revealed as you move through the Toolkit by clicking on the sections below. Under each tab you’ll find an overview of that topic, in-depth resources for download and further reading, explanatory videos, a searchable database, example ordinances and agreements, and much more. Sort the All Resources library by “TIR Toolkit” if you’re looking for quick access to a specific resource.
Explore for yourself to start implementing!
Utility Costs & Revenue Sources
Utility’s costs include their capital investments and day-to-day operating and maintenance expenses. These costs are paid for out of the utilities revenue sources, i.e., rates, fees, taxes, grants, and bonds. The revenue source available to pay for utility costs depends on the type of cost at issue. In particular, capital costs can be paid for either on a “pay as you go” basis as part of the operating budget or they can be paid for over time with debt as part of the capital budget.
How utilities establish their revenue sources to pay for their costs can vary widely depending on local and state requirements and needs.The subsections below provide an overview of how rates, fees, and taxes can be structured by drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater utilities and how these revenue sources can pay for localized water infrastructure solutions, as well as on special fees sometimes levied to help pay for key programs that can help the utility fund important strategies to help achieve water quality or quantity goals.
Explore the Debt Financing Localized Infrastructure section of the Toolkit to learn more about how utilities can use revenue bonds — a key utility revenue source — to pay for localized infrastructure costs.
Drinking water
Fundamentally, a drinking water utility rate is the amount the water provider charges its customers to cover the costs of delivering and treating drinking water. American Water Works Association’s “Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges” provides guidance for water policymakers, utility managers, and rate analysts to help them consider all relevant factors when setting water supply rates.
As utilities rely on rate revenues to operate, decreased water consumption can mean reduced funds for delivery and treatment of water; certainly, this is not a novel issue. Responding to this reality has been the subject of much discussion since at least the mid-1990s.
Implementing one or a combination of the conservation-oriented rate structures listed below can help.
Repeal of volume discounts
Increasing block or tiered rates
Seasonal rates
Drought pricing
Flat fee combined with a variable, tiered rate
Water budgets
Fixed, variable rate
While water is an essential resource, conservation pricing can yield on average a 15% reduction in water consumption and up to a 22% reduction in per capita use. Indeed, pricing policies making water more expensive, at least at higher tiers, inherently incentivizes business and residential consumers to use water more efficiently, either through technology or behavior changes.
San Antonio Water System (SAWS) uses a tiered rate structure to incentivize lower water consumption, together with other efficiency programs. Over the past 25 years, SAWS customers have reduced their consumption by nearly half from 225 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) to 117 GPCD.
In 2004, Boulder Water Utility boosted the its conservation programs by approving a block water budget rate structure designed to encourage water conservation. The water budget rate structure was further refined in 2018, and using data from this water budget rate structure, Boulder will work to measure the gallons of water saved through its conservation programs. This additional data will inform the program’s success and future needs.
By offering rebates and establishing a rate structure to incentivize its customers to use water more efficiently, Moulton Niguel Water District saves on average 4,000 acre-feet of water a year and has saved 24,000 acre-feet to date.
Further, communicating with ratepayers early and often about rate increases and conservation efforts is essential. You can find out more about WaterNow’s “Communicating with Ratepayers” workshop by clicking the link below. And a recent Environmental Law Institute article, linked below, highlights the need for the public to support investment in water infrastructure and the importance of communication with ratepayers.
WaterNow has also created a primer on how rates, fees, and incentives can motivate individuals and businesses to employ localized strategies.
Workshop on communicating with ratepayers that provides actionable strategies and helps water leaders to begin to build a vision around communications for their utility
Overview of how the existence of a utility rate or fee can provide a lever to motivate private parties’ participation in localized infrastructure solutions
How wastewater utilities approach rates varies widely. Types of structures include:
Rates
Property taxes
Fees based on parcel-size or amount of water put into the wastewater system
Approaches can also differ within a utility depending on whether a customer has metered or non-metered use or according to the type of property i.e., residential or commercial, being charged.
The University of North Carolina School of Government Environmental Finance Center created a “Rates Dashboard” designed to help utility managers and local officials compare and analyze water and wastewater rates against multiple characteristics, including utility finances, system characteristics, customer base socioeconomic conditions, geography, and history.
Stormwater
Stormwater utility fees can be structured in a number of ways, including:
Tiers of stormwater rates based on diameter of a property’s potable water pipe based on assumptions about usage
Based on a property’s “usage,” i.e., gallons of stormwater that a property generates per inch of rainfall either “parcel-based” or “impervious area-based”
Based on assessed property value, i.e., property taxes
A usage-based charge means impervious area becomes an important determinant of fees. Because the amount of runoff a property creates is directly proportional to the impervious area a property has, it would be fair for a property with a large amount of stormwater infrastructure to pay a higher stormwater fee.
In the parcel tax context, the County of Los Angeles passed Measure W in November 2018. Measure W is a parcel tax that will be assessed to every property on the County’s existing tax roll. The tax will be based on the amount of stormwater each property generates, measured in terms of impervious area. The revenue generated by Measure W will be used to help the County make much-needed localized water infrastructure investments that help the County manage its water supply as well as County water quality. Parcel-based structures can be coupled with financial incentives designed to encourage reduced impervious areas in exchange for reduced fees. Click here to read WaterNow’s primer on motivating private parties to employ localized water infrastructure solutions by leveraging rates, fees, and incentives.
Western Kentucky University’s most recent stormwater utility survey provides a comprehensive overview of the range of stormwater utility rate structures nationwide. WaterNow has also created a primer on how rates, fees, and incentives can motivate individuals and businesses to employ localized strategies. For example, explained in the resource linked below, the City of Portland uses its stormwater utility fee to encourage residents and businesses to manage stormwater onsite.
Overview of how the existence of a utility rate or fee can provide a lever to motivate private parties’ participation in localized infrastructure solutions
In addition to utility rates, some utilities levy special fees to help pay for key programs that can help the utility fund important strategies to help achieve water quality or quantity goals. Examples include “conservation fees” which collect funds to pay for water conservation programs, or “watershed protection” fees which help fund land acquisition efforts to protect water quality.
As explained in the sub-sections below, the City of Tucson, Arizona, and Central Arkansas Water use special fees to fund localized water infrastructure in their service areas.
Tucson Water
The City of Tucson implements a “conservation fee” that collects $0.10 per every 100 cubic feet (748 gallons) of water used by commercial and residential property owners. The revenue collected from the conservation fee, in turn, is used to fund Tucson Water’s rebates and grant programs, which reimburse residential and commercial property owners for replacing inefficient water fixtures and installing water re-use systems. Projects that Tucson Water reimburses include replacing high-usage toilets and clothes washers with water-efficient models, and installing rainwater harvesting and graywater systems.
The below resources provide additional details on Tucson Water’s conservation fee and rebate programs.
The Central Arkansas Water implements a “watershed protection fee” that generates approximately $1 million in annual revenues. The fee has been in effect since 2009, and is added to the monthly bills of all customers based on the diameter of a property’s water meter.
The watershed protection fee revenues are then used to repay the agency’s bonds. The bond proceeds are partly used to buy land in Central Arkansas’ watershed that is then protected by a conservation easement. This decentralized strategy helps the agency protect the community’s drinking water from increased pollution that may result from development and other land disturbances.
Click below to read more about Central Arkansas’ watershed protection fee and debt-financed localized water infrastructure program.
Utility capital budgets represent the utility’s long-term investments that are financed, mostly, with debt. Debt financing is often attractive to water utilities because it enables them to fund major projects with a minimal impact to ratepayers because the investments can be paid back over time. Traditionally, most utilities have only accessed debt-financing for centralized water infrastructure such as wastewater treatment plants, dams, reservoirs, drinking water conveyance systems, and sanitary sewer collection systems. However, localized water infrastructure can also be financed as part of capital budgets.
Click through the sub-sections below to learn about different types of debt-financing mechanisms including municipal/revenue bonds, green bonds, and environmental impact bonds, to gain insights into legal, tax, and accounting issues that can arise when using debt to pay for localized water infrastructure, and to explore case studies on how other communities have scaled their investment in decentralized strategies by moving these projects from their operating to their capital budgets.
If you would like to connect with an expert for further, pro bono assistance on these issues, click the “Ask an Expert” button below to submit an inquiry to WaterNow’s team of specialists.
There are different types of debt-financing mechanisms available to fund localized water infrastructure solutions, including municipal/revenue bonds, green bonds, and environmental impact bonds. Click through the sub-sections below to learn more.
Municipal/Revenue Bonds
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. Municipal utilities and special districts often have bonding authority as well, which allows them to borrow against expected revenue from ratepayers.
Municipalities benefit from a federal law that exempts investors’ interest earnings on the bonds from federal income tax. These “tax exempt” bonds translate to lower interest rates for some forms of municipal debt. Over the past century, tax-exempt municipal bonds have been the primary way that municipalities pay for water infrastructure investments.
Communities are already using municipal bonds to pay for localized infrastructure, including:
Seattle Public Utilities has used $2.2 million in municipal bond proceeds to fund its water conservation rebates programs as well as its low-income direct installation program allowing the utility to implement its market rate program on a regional scale and its low-income program citywide
Video with Ed Harrington about "Regulated Operations" and GASB 62 and the potential to unlock an alternative way to finance localized infrastructure solutions
Report exploring how to make better use of current market mechanisms for water utilities to afford implementing localized and green infrastructure solutions at scale.
Green Bonds are instruments in which the proceeds will be used exclusively for projects and activities that serve environmental sustainability purposes. Many