In Deep Water: How Today’s Technology Can Localize and Restore Urban Water Infrastructure
Who will you meet?
Cities are innovating, companies are pivoting, and start-ups are growing. Like you, every urban practitioner has a remarkable story of insight and challenge from the past year.
Meet these peers and discuss the future of cities in the new Meeting of the Minds Executive Cohort Program. Replace boring virtual summits with facilitated, online, small-group discussions where you can make real connections with extraordinary, like-minded people.
Many of us have experienced the growth of the “buy local food” movement in recent years. We’d like to propose an even more effective movement: “drink local”. (For you barflies out there, we’re referring to water, not beer).
Many municipalities today have put themselves “in deep water” by simultaneously centralizing water systems while underinvesting in water infrastructure. We’re then surprised when the inevitable rationing, flooding, or sewage overflows occur (these should really be no surprise in the US, where a water line bursts every two minutes  and pipes typically leak 16% of the water they transport ). To reverse this trend, we need to focus on localizing urban water systems and restoring water infrastructure, both of which can be accomplished with today’s technologies.
Why are local water systems more economically and financially sustainable? Due to the high cost – economically and environmentally – of transporting and treating water, municipal governments and water utilities should “seek out every drop on hand before looking afield ,” reusing and recycling water to the greatest extent possible. Before transporting water from one state to the next, they could consider conservation policies, leak repairs, and water recycling. In lieu of dams or desalination plants, they could evaluate alternatives to water for cooling or fracking. Instead of discharging stormwater or black-water from a site for treatment by utilities – requiring huge networks of expensive sewer and sanitary pipes and pump stations — real estate owners could reuse it onsite for irrigation and other non-potable water needs. In all of these cases, localizing the water system allows for better service and reliability with lower infrastructure cost.
Why are we underinvesting in water infrastructure? In part, government austerity measures view water infrastructure as a painless place to cut. The US government’s proposed 37% cut to the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds for 2013 punctuates a steady decline of federal support for water infrastructure projects since the Clean Water Act of 1972 . This year, these low-interest loan programs will cover only 2% of the estimated $98B need . Meanwhile, private investors hesitate to back centralized water supply and sewer projects because of their high costs and vulnerability to droughts and energy security risks. And ratepayers who enjoy cheap water and rarely consider the pipes behind their bathroom wall see no reason to pay more.
To localize an urban water system, one must first gain a comprehensive understanding of the watershed surrounding the city and the ability to design and analyze new possibilities in context. That involves unifying data on existing conditions and analyzing designs, as these groups have done.
- To preserve Fairfax County’s freshwater supplies, Dewberry installed 5 miles of purple pipe to deliver treated wastewater to nearby parks for irrigation and a local waste-to-energy facility for cooling purposes.
- To protect local stream ecosystems, Clark County Public Works added 15 rain gardens in a subdivision with undersized stormwater facilities. These biomimetic design features absorbed and filtered polluted runoff that would have otherwise discharged into the surface waters.
To restore water infrastructure, one needs to attract long-term capital at good rates, which requires confidence on the part of government, willingness-to-pay by ratepayers, and a return on investment for private investors.
- To complete the environmental permitting process for a client’s new development in Virginia, Timmons Group restored the affected waterways and habitats for local flora and fauna. In addition to the environmental benefits, the client’s decision to invest in natural infrastructure reduced costs by over 50 percent by eliminating the need to purchase mitigation bank credits.
- To attract private capital, the City of Buffalo offered American Water a contract to upgrade, operate, and maintain its underperforming water system. American Water easily surpassed expectations and saved the City $21 million with cost-effective efficiency improvements such as online management systems for customer records and work orders. 
- To win stakeholder buy-in for a new water reclamation facility, AECOM shared 3D visuals of its design at public hearings in the Town of Davie, Florida. Ratepayers and government officials concerned with the plant’s impacts on the local character could see how the facility preserved the rural atmosphere while protecting their water supply. The $101M project was approved much earlier than expected.
As these projects exemplify, while many cities have been heading in the wrong direction when it comes to their water infrastructure, the creative application of today’s technology – and don’t forget a healthy dose of political will – can reverse that trend, with lasting positive impacts on the local environment and economy.
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012) Aging Water Infrastructure Research: Water Distribution Systems.
 Fishman, C. (2011) The Big Thirst. New York: Free Press. Kindle Location 5766.
 Barnett, C. (2011) The Blue Revolution. Boston: Beacon Press. Kindle Location 4971.
 Gies, E. (2012) “Spending Cuts Threaten U.S. Water Infrastructure”, Forbes.
 American Society of Civil Engineers. (2011) “Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Water and Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure”
 The National Council for Public-Private Partnerships. (2005) “Partnership Pays Dividends for Buffalo’s Water System”
Leave your comment below, or reply to others.
Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.
Read more from MeetingoftheMinds.org
Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology
People seem frequently to assume that the terms “sustainability” and “resilience” are synonyms, an impression reinforced by the frequent use of the term “climate resilience”, which seems to enmesh both concepts firmly. In fact, while they frequently overlap, and indeed with good policy and planning reinforce one another, they are not the same. This article picks them apart to understand where one ends and the other begins, and where the “sweet spot” lies in achieving mutual reinforcement to the benefit of disaster risk reduction (DRR).
As extreme weather conditions become the new normal—from floods in Baton Rouge and Venice to wildfires in California, we need to clean and save stormwater for future use while protecting communities from flooding and exposure to contaminated water. Changing how we manage stormwater has the potential to preserve access to water for future generations; prevent unnecessary illnesses, injuries, and damage to communities; and increase investments in green, climate-resilient infrastructure, with a focus on communities where these kinds of investments are most needed.
A few years ago, I worked with some ARISE-US members to carry out a survey of small businesses in post-Katrina New Orleans of disaster risk reduction (DRR) awareness. One theme stood out to me more than any other. The businesses that had lived through Katrina and survived well understood the need to be prepared and to have continuity plans. Those that were new since Katrina all tended to have the view that, to paraphrase, “well, government (city, state, federal…) will take care of things”.
While the experience after Katrina, of all disasters, should be enough to show anyone in the US that there are limits on what government can do, it does raise the question, of what could and should public and private sectors expect of one another?