A Policy Toolbox for Aging Water Infrastructure

Abstract

Aging infrastructure poses challenges to water and wastewater systems worldwide, yet solutions often focus narrowly on capital projects. We argue for a broader approach, emphasizing the role of classic policy tools—authority, incentives, symbolism, capacity building, and learning. With such tools, governments and organizations can influence management practices and user behavior, thereby extending the lifespan of existing infrastructure. We highlight the need to view infrastructure issues as management and behavior problems, advocating for policy-driven strategies to complement traditional capital solutions.

1. Introduction

Solutions to aging water, energy, transportation, and other infrastructure critical to cities worldwide have focused almost exclusively on capital improvements—large sums of money to build new things. While capital solutions are obviously necessary, there has been relatively little discussion of the potential of policy tools to contribute. We argue that aging infrastructure is not strictly an infrastructure problem but a management and behavior problem that can be influenced by policy tools [1,2,3]. Consequently, policy tools like authority, incentives/sanctions, symbolism, capacity building, and learning should be considered for restoring aging infrastructure.

Consider water and wastewater. For the past five years, a survey by the American Water Works Association has identified rehabilitation and replacement of aging water infrastructure as the top-ranked issue facing the water sector, and financing of capital improvements has been second or third [4]. ASCE’s Report Card for America’s Infrastructure gave U.S. drinking water and wastewater grades of C− and D+, emphasizing the need for improvement [5]. One study by ASCE identified that annual capital investments of USD 129 billion are needed for water and wastewater, but only about USD 48 billion is being funded [6]. Recent injections of federal cash have helped; the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 provided USD 350 billion for water and wastewater infrastructure [7], and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 provided USD 48 billion [8]. A 2023 report found that 20% of water mains in the United States and Canada were past their useful lives and have not been replaced because of a USD 452 billion shortfall in funding [9].

In all this, however, there has been little recognition of how policy tools might help, and research on policy tools applied to aging water infrastructure is lacking. Policy tools, or policy instruments, are the means through which governments and other organizations, as agents, seek to influence the behavior of targets (usually users or citizens) and achieve policy goals. Here, we explore the question “What role can policy tools play in restoring aging infrastructure?” and propose a toolbox of policy options.

Schneider and Ingram [10,11] described five main categories of policy tools along with their uses and assumptions. We summarize them here and highlight a few water-related applications that were found in the literature or informed by our professional experience. Our purpose is not to evaluate the feasibility of each option but to present an overview of conceptual policy alternatives that water regulators, managers, and researchers can consider in specific situations.

2. Policy Tools

The five categories of policy tools—authority, incentives, symbolism, capacity building, and learning—are discussed below, alongside our findings of existing or potential applications in water infrastructure. The literature and examples are mostly from the United States, but similar cases may be found elsewhere.

2.1. Authority

Authority tools permit, prohibit, or require action. They are backed by the legitimate authority of the government and assume targets will follow without tangible payoffs.

In the case of aging infrastructure, authority tools might be used to enforce standards for infrastructure operation and maintenance. Design and construction standards are common and invaluable for ensuring that infrastructure is built properly to begin with. However, O&M (operations and maintenance) standards are not so common. Governments could mandate regular inspections and timely repairs of water infrastructure, promoting the proactive addressing of aging systems before they fail, which could prevent costly emergency repairs and service disruptions. The state of New Jersey, for example, requires inspections on all water valves 300 mm (12 in.) and larger at least once every two years and fire hydrants every year [12]. Governments could also mandate a valve exercising program to help minimize the number of non-functional valves in a water system. Maintenance mandates could be tailored to the size of the water utility to avoid placing too much of a burden on smaller utilities.

One simple and cost-effective O&M policy that governments could require is spot assessments. Spot assessments take advantage of the exposed pipe when repairing a leak. During a spot assessment, operators observe the condition of the pipe, note the cause of the leak (if known), and take soil and material samples. If the pipe is metal, a sacrificial anode could be placed to prevent corrosion. Such spot assessments can contribute valuable condition information to an ongoing system inventory or asset management program [13].

Authority tools may be employed to enforce water conservation measures during droughts, such as restrictions on non-essential water use like lawn watering. By setting enforceable limits, these tools can significantly reduce water demand, thereby prolonging the lifespan of existing water resources and infrastructure. This proactive approach not only helps in managing immediate scarcity but also builds resilience against future water challenges. In 2002, on Colorado’s Front Range, mandatory water restrictions were enacted to cope with a severe drought. The restrictions varied by water system but generally included limits on the time of day and duration of outdoor watering. The per capita water use decreased by 4% to 12% during voluntary restrictions and by 18% to 56% during mandatory restrictions [14]. Similarly, during California’s 2012–2016 drought, the state imposed mandatory water reductions on over 400 urban water districts. The restrictions came after voluntary reductions did not achieve the desired results. While responding to voluntary reductions, the water districts utilized capacity-building tools such as information campaigns. When the reductions became mandatory, authority tools such as customer-level water-use prohibitions were combined with penalties and aggressive pricing (sanction tools) [15].

The same authority tools used for drought conditions can also mitigate the effects of any water shortage, including large-scale disruptions due to failing infrastructure. If a large-diameter pipeline feeding water from a critical source were to fail in the summer, a water scarcity policy could be activated with multiple tiers such as one that requires eliminating outdoor watering until supply is restored.

Water agencies can apply authority tools by adopting policies to enhance resilience—the ability to recover from a disruption. For example, a water utility might establish interagency connections to neighboring systems and install backup power at critical facilities [16]. Similarly, having and training the right personnel can increase resilience. The AWWA Policy Statement on Emergency Preparedness and Security encourages personnel to be “trained, aware, and vigilant in supporting risk mitigation and resilience management protocols” [17].

Asset management plans are an important aspect of minimizing the effects of aging infrastructure. Asset management plans help identify infrastructure to rehabilitate or replace based on factors such as leak frequency, age, and condition. Mandating asset management plans constitutes an authority tool. Utah requires water utilities to adopt an asset management plan if they want to receive state or federal funding [18]. Symbolic tools and capacity-building tools should also be employed to encourage an effective plan.

Authority tools can be used to protect aging infrastructure from other utilities or construction activities. For example, the “call before you dig” requirement in most areas is an authority tool used to protect infrastructure. Other protective policies may require a minimum distance from other utilities, especially ones with lines that employ impressed current cathodic protection or other stray current sources.

Finally, water loss is a potential target for authority tools. Ress and Robertson [19] analyzed possibilities for regulating water loss, e.g., requiring water audits and/or establishing permissible levels. Doing so is an authority tool: a regulation handed down by the federal or state government that water utilities would be expected to follow. Some states already have these kinds of requirements, and model legislation is available [20].

2.2. Incentives and Sanctions

Incentives and sanctions are tangible payoffs or fines associated with user behavior. They are best used when targets will not act unless an incentive or sanction exists.

For water infrastructure, incentives might include grants or rebates for utilities that adopt innovative technologies, such as smart meters or advanced leak detection systems, to reduce water loss and improve efficiency. On a larger scale, the Bureau of Reclamation offers WaterSMART grants to water utilities or irrigation companies that pursue projects with the purpose of conserving water and increasing water supply reliability [21]. On a smaller scale, the North Springs Improvement District in Broward County, Florida, launched a rebate program in which homeowners can be compensated up to USD 100 for purchasing and installing a new leak detection device [22]. Financial incentives like these can lower the barrier for utilities and users to invest in new technology that prolongs infrastructure life.

Sanctions, on the other hand, could include penalties for utilities that fail to meet established infrastructure standards or exceed water loss thresholds. To conserve water, outdoor watering restrictions may be placed. In 2002, the city of Sandy, Utah, restricted sprinkler irrigation from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. every day; residents watering during this time could be fined up to USD 750 and spend 90 days in jail [23]. Another sanction example from Utah is the retraction of state funding for water suppliers that do not maintain an up-to-date water conservation plan [24]. Similarly, water utilities that do not adhere to required maintenance schedules or that allow excessive leakage might face fines or reduced access to federal or state funding. Such sanctions create financial motivation for utilities to operate efficiently, which can lead to more reliable water infrastructure in the long run.

Water rates can incentivize users to conserve water during droughts. Sowby and South [25] documented cases of two western U.S. cities whose rate structures, conditional on water supply, contributed to water savings during a recent water shortage. The cases show that, in a temporary resource scarcity problem, rates can influence user behavior to reduce demand (a policy solution), whereas the typical alternative might have been to seek more supply (a capital solution).

2.3. Symbolism

More precisely called symbolic and hortatory tools, this category of policy instruments includes things like encouragement, persuasion, and appeal. These tools are best used when the desired behavior aligns with users’ values. A community that feels responsible for its water resources and has an opportunity to shape the management of those resources is more likely to be receptive to and supportive of difficult decisions.

Messaging about the value of infrastructure, such as public awareness campaigns that highlight the importance of water systems and the consequences of neglect, can foster a culture of stewardship. For example, campaigns that educate the public about the hidden costs of water infrastructure and the importance of paying for sustainable water services—“willingness to pay” [26]—can help build support for rate increases or bond measures needed to fund improvements.

Symbolic actions can also involve public endorsements by community leaders or partnerships with local organizations to promote water conservation and infrastructure investment. By aligning the message with community values, such as environmental sustainability or fiscal responsibility, symbolic efforts can shift public perception and encourage support for infrastructure initiatives. This can lead to increased voter approval for funding measures or greater community involvement in water conservation programs.

An example of a community that feels responsible for its water resources is one connected to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). LADWP implemented a new water rate structure in 1993 in response to public input during a drought. Developed with guidance from a citizen committee, the plan featured seasonal pricing, eliminated fixed charges, and included extensive public outreach. Ongoing engagement allowed LADWP to refine its approach based on community feedback, leading to the adoption of a new rate structure in 1995 based on water budgets. The arrangement considers factors like lot size, weather zone, and household size, ensuring fair and efficient water use. Public participation played a key role in shaping policies that have successfully curbed water demand despite population and economic growth [26].

2.4. Capacity Building

Capacity-building tools are activities like training. They are best used when some barrier of information, skill, or resource stands in the way of a solution.

Operators may be a target of capacity building. Regular training sessions on advanced leak detection techniques, energy-efficient pumping strategies, and predictive maintenance could significantly enhance infrastructure longevity while reducing operational costs and improving reliability. Leak detection, for instance, plays a vital role in maintaining water distribution efficiency. Undetected leaks contribute to significant economic and environmental losses, emphasizing the importance of equipping utility operators with state-of-the-art sensor-based detection methods. Similarly, energy-efficient pumping practices are critical for optimizing performance and reducing operational expenses [27]. Predictive maintenance, which incorporates advanced data analytics and machine learning techniques, enables early identification of system problems [28]. Hallaji et al. [29] discussed the application of deep learning models in predictive maintenance, demonstrating how such approaches can anticipate failures before they escalate into costly disruptions.

Capacity building can—and should—extend beyond operators to include policymakers and planners who play a crucial role in infrastructure management. They can benefit from new knowledge to integrate advanced technologies and best practices into infrastructure management. This could include workshops on climate-resilient infrastructure planning [30], the use of big data and analytics for infrastructure monitoring [28], or the implementation of public–private partnerships [31], all of which touch the responsibilities of city-level decision-makers. By building the capacity of those who manage and plan infrastructure, communities can better prepare for future challenges and optimize the use of available resources.

Capacity-building efforts can drive systemic improvements in water governance by fostering collaboration across sectors. Training programs that bring together utility operators, engineers, and policymakers encourage knowledge exchange and interdisciplinary problem-solving. For example, contractor training on best practices for pipe installation and repair can help minimize long-term maintenance needs, thereby enhancing infrastructure durability. Similarly, cross-sector training initiatives can facilitate the adoption of integrated water management approaches, ensuring more cohesive and efficient infrastructure planning and operation.

A well-used application of capacity building is water conservation education. In this setting, water users are the targets whose behavior is to be changed. Change might occur after a user participates in a water-wise landscaping course, a water treatment plant tour, a home remodeling demonstration, or a one-on-one consultation with a staff member. Water conservation education is often combined with other policy tools like incentives.

Capacity-building initiatives are crucial for addressing the challenges associated with aging water infrastructure. Initiatives could encompass training, professional development, and knowledge-sharing programs designed to enhance both technical expertise and decision-making capabilities among utility operators, engineers, and policymakers. By equipping these professionals with the necessary skills and knowledge, capacity building can improve infrastructure resilience, optimize resource use, and extend the operational lifespan of water systems.

2.5. Learning

Learning tools, often confused with capacity-building tools, are for learning about the problem through study. They are best used when the problem is especially complex and the solutions are unknown. Learning tools can foster a culture of continuous improvement where lessons learned from past projects inform future actions, leading to more resilient and sustainable infrastructure systems.

Strategic planning, master planning, and similar long-range studies fall in the category of learning tools: they generate information about the system or problem that can lead to confident decisions. Pursuing research on asset management, emerging technologies, and climate change impacts will provide the data and insights needed to make informed decisions. For example, long-term studies on the effects of climate change on regional water availability can help a utility plan for future water supply challenges, such as increased drought frequency [30].

Learning tools can be used to pilot new technologies or management approaches on a small scale before broader implementation. A city might conduct a pilot study on the effectiveness of green infrastructure solutions, gathering data on costs, benefits, and operational challenges. These studies can identify vulnerabilities in current infrastructure, suggest evidence-based strategies for addressing them, and provide valuable lessons that inform future projects. A special form of learning tool is a citizen advisory committee or similar body. The committee considers complex problems and advise decision-makers.

A condition assessment is a learning tool that can be used to more effectively combat the problems that aging water infrastructure poses. Water providers perform a comprehensive evaluation of the current state of their infrastructure, including the condition of pipes, treatment plants, and storage facilities. By gathering data on the age, material, and condition of water infrastructure assets, policymakers and utilities can identify critical vulnerabilities, prioritize investments, and develop long-term plans for improvement [32]. For example, a condition assessment of a drinking water distribution system might reveal aging pipes prone to leaks. This information can then be used to prioritize decisions on pipe replacement, leak detection and repair programs, and the development of more resilient water supply systems. Using a learning tool like a condition assessment before applying funds to a problem facilitates more informed decision-making and more efficient use of resources.

One study looked specifically at methods for performing condition assessments on valves and appurtenances [33]. They surveyed water systems in North America, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom and found that many large water systems do not perform regular condition assessments due to the difficulty of inspecting a large number of valves. However, some of the systems defined a list of “critical valves” that were inspected regularly. Learning tools do not need to be used for a whole system and can also be valuable in smaller capacities.

3. Conclusions

Table 1. Policy toolbox for aging water infrastructure.

Policy Tool Category	Description	Applications in Water Infrastructure
Authority	Policies that permit, prohibit, or require actions based on the government’s legitimate authority and are used to enforce standards and mandates without direct financial incentives	Design and construction standards
		Mandated inspections
		Mandated asset management plans
		Water restrictions during droughts
		“Call before you dig” rules
		Water loss audits
		Emergency response protocols for infrastructure failures
Incentives and Sanctions	Tangible rewards (incentives) or penalties (sanctions) that motivate desired behavior by linking compliance to financial or legal outcomes	Grants and rebates to users
		Water restrictions with penalties
		Water rates that encourage conservation during shortages
		Performance-based incentives tied to reliability or customer satisfaction
Symbolism	Tools that rely on persuasion, public messaging, and the alignment of policies with community values to foster support and behavioral change	Public awareness campaigns
		Endorsements and public participation
		Messaging that builds a culture of stewardship
		Storytelling and positive case studies
Capacity Building	Efforts to enhance skills, knowledge, and resources to overcome barriers	Training programs for operators
		Workshops for policymakers
		Water conservation education
		Digital tools to assist in infrastructure asset management
Learning	Tools focused on gathering, analyzing, and applying information to understand complex problems	Strategic and master planning studies
		Research projects
		Benchmarking studies
		Condition assessments
		Pilot studies
		Citizen advisory committees

reviews the categories of policy tools and summarizes the water infrastructure applications we discussed above. This toolbox may be a starting point for problem-solving.

While capital investment remains a critical component of addressing aging infrastructure, it is not the only solution. Policy tools—authority, incentives and sanctions, symbolism, capacity building, and learning—are powerful but underutilized mechanisms to influence the management and behavior that contribute to infrastructure degradation. We described these tools and compiled a policy toolbox that can be the starting point for problem-solving. We encourage further analysis of the performance of water infrastructure before and after policy implementation; such case studies could be highly worthwhile for both academic researchers and policy practitioners.

Water regulators, managers, and researchers should think in terms of policy tools in order to extend the lifespan of existing infrastructure, optimize the use of available funds, and ensure a more sustainable future. The key is to recognize that infrastructure challenges are as much about people and processes as they are about physical assets and that effective policy can bridge the gap between capital needs and long-term sustainability.