The Authoritative Resource on Safe Water®

Buried No Longer:

Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge

February 2012
2 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge

Acknowledgments

This report was developed by the American Water Works Association under 

the direction of its Water Utility Council, through Stratus Consulting in Boulder, 

Colorado. Significant portions of the analyses described in this report were 

initiated or developed by John Cromwell, who unfortunately passed away before 

this project was completed. John was a true visionary, a wonderful friend and 

colleague, and an ardent believer in promoting sound management of water 

system infrastructure. We hope this report does proper service to John’s intent, 

integrity and passion. Special recognition is also due to Bob Raucher, who 

completed the work with great attention to detail, patience and outstanding 

professionalism.

Haydn Reynolds is the developer of the Nessie Model and managed all the 

empirical investigations in this report. His continued engagement in the 

development of this report has been exemplary, as has been his willingness 

to address the many questions involved in the transition of the final report 

preparation from John Cromwell to Bob Raucher and others at Stratus 

Consulting. Finally, but not least, a number of AWWA utility members did 

significant work on this project, including Dave Rager (who chairs the Water 

Utility Council), Mike Hooker (who was WUC chair when the report was initiated), 

Aurel Arndt (who chairs the advisory work group on this project), and Joe Bella, 

John Sullivan, Richard Talley, Robert Walters, and Dave Weihrauch, all of whom 

made significant contributions as members of the advisory work group. 

Project Funding

Funding for this project was provided by the Water Industry Technical Action 

fund (WITAF). WITAF is funded through AWWA organizational member dues. 

It supports activities, information, and analysis to advance sound and effective 

drinking water legislation, regulation and policy.
 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge 3

Introduction. A new kind of challenge is emerging in the United States, one 

that for many years was largely buried in our national consciousness. Now it can 

be buried no longer. Much of our drinking water infrastructure, the more than one 

million miles of pipes beneath our streets, is nearing the end of its useful life 

and approaching the age at which it needs to be replaced. Moreover, our shifting 

population brings significant growth to some areas of the country, requiring larger 

pipe networks to provide water service.

As documented in this report, restoring existing water 

systems as they reach the end of their useful lives and 

expanding them to serve a growing population will cost at 

least $1 trillion over the next 25 years, if we are to maintain 

current levels of water service. Delaying the investment can 

result in degrading water service, increasing water service 

disruptions, and increasing expenditures for emergency 

repairs. Ultimately we will have to face the need to “catch 

up” with past deferred investments, and the more we delay 

the harder the job will be when the day of reckoning comes.

In the years ahead, all of us who pay for water service will 

absorb the cost of this investment, primarily through higher 

water bills. The amounts will vary depending on community 

size and geographic region, but in some communities 

these infrastructure costs alone could triple the size of a 

typical family’s water bills. Other communities will need to 

collect significant “impact” or development fees to meet the needs of a growing 

population. Numerous communities will need to invest for replacement and 

raise funds to accommodate growth at the same time. Investments that may be 

required to meet new standards for drinking water quality will add even more to 

the bill.

Although the challenge to our water infrastructure has been less visible than other 

infrastructure concerns, it’s no less important. Our water treatment and delivery 

systems provide public health protection, fire protection, economic prosperity and 

the high quality of life we enjoy. Yet most Americans pay less than $3.75 for every 

1,000 gallons of safe water delivered to their taps. 

This report demonstrates that as a nation, we need to bring the conversation 

about water infrastructure above ground. Deferring needed investments today 

will only result in greater expenses tomorrow and pass on a greater burden to 

our children and grandchildren. It’s time to confront America’s water 

infrastructure challenge.

The Era of Infrastructure Replacement. More than a decade ago 

the American Water Works Association (AWWA) announced that a new era was 

dawning: the replacement era, in which our nation would need to begin rebuilding 

the water and wastewater systems bequeathed to us by earlier generations. Our 

seminal report—Dawn of the Replacement Era—demonstrated that significant 

investments will be required in coming decades if we are to maintain the water 

and wastewater systems that are so essential to our way of life. 
4 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge

The Dawn report examined 20 water systems, using a relatively new technique 

to build what came to be called a “Nessie Curve” for each system. The Nessie 

Curve, so called because the graph follows an outline that someone likened to a 

silhouette of the Loch Ness Monster, revealed that each of the 20 water systems 

faced unprecedented needs to rebuild its underground water infrastructure—its 

pipe network. For each system, the future investment was an “echo” of the 

demographic history of the community, reflecting succeeding generations of 

pipe that were laid down as the community grew over many years. Most of those 

generations of pipe were shown to be coming to an end of their useful service 

lives in a relatively compressed period. Like the pipes themselves, the need for 

this massive investment was mostly buried and out of sight. But it threatens our 

future if we don’t elevate it and begin to take action now.

The present report was undertaken to extend the Dawn report beyond those 

20 original cities and encompass the entire United States. The results are 

startling. They confirm what every water utility professional knows: we face 

the need for massive reinvestment in our water infrastructure over the coming 

decades. The pipe networks that were largely built and paid for by earlier 

generations—and passed down to us as an inheritance—last a long time, but 

they are not immortal. The nation’s drinking water infrastructure—especially the 

underground pipes that deliver safe water to America’s homes and businesses—

is aging and in need of significant reinvestment. Like many of the roads, bridges, 

and other public assets on which the country relies, most of our buried drinking 

water infrastructure was built 50 or more years ago, in the post-World War II era 

of rapid demographic change and economic growth. In some older urban areas, 

many water mains have been in the ground for a century or longer. 

Given its age, it comes as no surprise that a large proportion 

of US water infrastructure is approaching, or has already 

reached, the end of its useful life. The need to rebuild these 

pipe networks must come on top of other water investment 

needs, such as the need to replace water treatment plants 

and storage tanks, and investments needed to comply with 

standards for drinking water quality. They also come on top 

of wastewater and stormwater investment needs which—

judging from the US Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(USEPA) most recent “gap analysis”—are likely to be as large 

as drinking water needs over the coming decades. Moreover, 

both water and wastewater infrastructure needs come on 

top of the other vital community infrastructures, such as 

streets, schools, etc. 

Prudent planning for infrastructure renewal requires credible, 

analysis-based estimates of where, when, and how much 

pipe replacement or expansion for growth is required. This 

report summarizes a comprehensive and robust national-level analysis of the 

cost, timing, and location of the investments necessary to renew water mains 

over the coming decades. It also examines the additional pipe investments we 

can anticipate to meet projected population growth, regional population shifts, 

and service area growth through 2050.
 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge 5

This analysis is based on the insight that there will be “demographic echoes” in 

which waves of reinvestment are driven by a combination of the original patterns 

of pipe investment, the pipe materials used, and local operating environments. 

The report examines the reinvestment demands implied by these factors, along 

with population trends, in order to estimate needs for 

pipe replacement and concurrent investment demands to 

accommodate population growth.

Although this report does not substitute for a careful and 

detailed analysis at the utility level as a means of informing 

local decisions, it constitutes the most thorough and 

comprehensive analysis ever undertaken of the nation’s 

drinking water infrastructure renewal needs. The keys to 

our analysis include the following:

1. Understanding the original timing of water system 

development in the United States.

2. Understanding the various materials from which pipes were 

made, and where and when the pipes of each material 

were likely to have been installed in various sizes.

3. Understanding the life expectancy of the various types and 

sizes of pipe (“pipe cohorts”) in actual operating environments.

4. Understanding the replacement costs for each type and size of pipe. 

5. Developing a probability distribution for the “wear-out” of each pipe cohort. 

Methodology 

For this report, we differentiated across four water system size categories*:

■ Very small systems (serving fewer than 3,300 people, representing 

84.5% of community water systems).

■ Small systems (3,300 to 9,999 served, representing 8.5% of community 

water systems).

■ Medium-size systems (10,000 to 49,999 served, representing over 

5.5% of systems). And, 

■ Large systems (serving more than 50,000 people, representing 

1.5% of community water systems).

* Note that the water system size categories used in this analysis are not identical to the size 

categories USEPA uses for regulatory purposes. Note also that although data were analyzed 

based on these four size categories, some of the graphs that accompany this report combine 

medium-size and small systems. This is done for simplicity in the visual presentation, when the 

particular dynamics being represented are closely similar for medium-size and small systems.
6 Buried No LoNger: CoNfroNtiNg AmeriCA’s WAter iNfrAstruCture ChALLeNge

Next, we divided the country into four regions (Northeast, Midwest, South, and 

West), as shown in Figure 1. These regions are not equal in population, but they 

roughly share certain similarities, including their population dynamics and the 

historical patterns of pipe installation driven by those dynamics. Data published 

by USEPA, the water industry, and the US Census Bureau were tapped to obtain a 

solid basis for regional pipe installation profi les by system size and pipe diameter. 

The US Census Bureau has produced a number of retrospective studies of the 

changes in urban and rural circumstances between 1900 and 2000 that proved 

especially useful in this analysis. The report also used the AWWA Water/Stats 

database, the USEPA Community Water Supply Survey, and data from the 2002 

Public Works Infrastructure Survey (PWIS) as essential inputs in the analysis.

In addition, we conducted a limited survey of professionals in the fi eld concerning 

pipe replacement issues and other relevant “professional knowledge.” The 

national aggregate for the original investment in all types and sizes of pipes is 

shown in Figure 2, while Figure 3 shows the aggregate current replacement value 

of water pipes by pipe material and utility size, totaling over $2.1 trillion.

Figure 1: Regions Used in This Report

Estimated Aggregate Investment in US Water Mains (in millions of 2010 $s)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1870

1880

189019001910

1920

1930

19401950196019701980

19902000

2010 $M

Figure 2: Historic Investment Profi le for All US Water Systems, 1850-2000
 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge 7

Finally, we used historical data on the production and use of seven major types of 

pipe with 14 total variations (Figure 4) to estimate what kinds of pipe were installed 

in water systems in particular years. This was validated by field checking with a 

sample of water utilities as well as checking against the original Nessie analysis. 

Together these steps resulted in the development of 16 separate inventories 

(four regions with four utility sizes in each region), with seven types of pipe in 

each inventory, thus providing the most comprehensive picture of the nation’s 

water pipe inventory ever assembled. Note that in some of the report’s graphs, 

“long-” and “short-lived” versions of certain pipe materials are combined, for 

purposes of visual simplicity in the presentation.

In order to consider growth, it was also necessary to examine population trends 

across rural, suburban, and urban settings over the past century. US Census Bureau 

Figure 3: Aggregate Replacement Value of Water Pipes by Pipe Material and Utility Size 

(millions 2010 $s)

Figure 4: Historic Production and Use of Water Pipe by Material

Pipe Material Joint Type

Internal

Corrosion

Protection

External -

Corrosion

Protection

Steel Welded None None

Steel Welded Cement None

Cast Iron (Pit Cast) Lead None None

Cast Iron Lead None None

Cast Iron Lead Cement None

Cast Iron Leadite None None

Cast Iron Leadite Cement None

Cast Iron Rubber Cement None

Ductile Iron Rubber Cement None

Ductile Iron Rubber Cement PE Encasement

Asbestos Cement Rubber Material Material

Reinforced Conc. Rubber Material Material

Prestressed Conc. Rubber Material Material

Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Rubber Material Material

Commercially Available

Predominantly in Use

Source: American Water

1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Region CI CICL DI AC PV Steel PCCP TOTAL

Northeast Large 48,958 8,995 5,050 2,308 1,875 335 0 67,522

Northeast Medium & Small 66,357 61,755 28,777 26,007 16,084 5,533 6,899 211,411

Northeast Very Small 14,491 15,992 10,661 7,281 7,937 329 462 57,152

Midwest Large 37,413 9,151 3,077 2,504 1,098 784 512 54,539

Midwest Medium & Small 74,654 92,106 51,577 37,248 30,506 8,682 11,152 305,925

Midwest Very Small 37,597 28,943 25,464 12,428 19,720 601 828 125,581

Southeast Large 30,425 28,980 29,569 21,229 14,936 9,337 7,227 141,703

South Medium & Small 54,772 98,608 140,079 103,659 102,804 21,394 17,160 538,475

South Very Small 43,183 24,998 49,791 34,529 47,823 1,461 1,244 203,028

West Large 15,448 16,055 28,949 14,774 14,723 7,443 6,215 103,607

West Medium & Small 15,775 50,145 70,355 50,541 48,885 12,276 9,806 257,782

West Very Small 16,344 11,199 17,910 13,166 17,245 545 453 76,862

Total 455,416 446,927 461,258 325,674 323,637 68,719 61,957 2,143,589

CI: cast iron; CICL: cast iron cement lined; DI: ductile iron; AC: asbestos cement; PV: polyvinyl chloride; 

PCCP: prestressed concrete cylinder pipe
8 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge

projections of demographic trends allowed the development 

of infrastructure need profiles for growth through 2050 in 

each of the regions and utility size categories (for the latter 

purpose, city size was used as a proxy for utility size). 

The study generally assumes that utilities continue efforts 

to manage the number of main breaks that occur per mile 

of pipe rather than absorb increases in pipe failures. That 

is, the study assumes utilities will strive to maintain current 

levels of service rather than allow increasing water service 

outages. We assume that each utility’s objective is to make 

these investments at the optimal time for maintaining current 

service levels and to avoid replacing pipes while the repairs 

are still cost-effective. Ideally, pipe replacement occurs at 

the end of a pipe’s “useful life”; that is, the point in time 

when replacement or rehabilitation becomes 

less expensive in going forward than the costs of 

numerous unscheduled breaks and associated 

emergency repairs. 

With this data in hand and using the assumptions 

above, we projected the “typical” useful service 

life of the pipes in our inventory using the 

“Nessie Model”TM. The model embodies pipe 

failure probability distributions based on 

many utilities’ current operating experiences, 

coupled with insights from extensive research 

and professional experiences with typical pipe 

conditions at different ages and sizes, according to pipe material. The analysis 

used seven different types of pipe in three diameters and addressed pipe 

inventories dating back to 1870. Estimated typical service lives of pipes are 

Derived Current Service 

Lives (Years)

CI CICL 

(LSL) 

CICL 

(SSL)) 

DI 

(LSL) 

DI 

(SSL) 

AC 

(LSL) 

AC 

(SSL) 

PVC Steel Conc & 

PCCP

Northeast Large 130 120 100 110 50 80 80 100 100 100

Midwest Large 125 120 85 110 50 100 85 55 80 105

South Large 110 100 100 105 55 100 80 55 70 105

West Large 115 100 75 110 60 105 75 70 95 75

Northeast Medium & Small 115 120 100 110 55 100 85 100 100 100

Midwest Medium & Small 125 120 85 110 50 70 70 55 80 105

South Medium & Small 105 100 100 105 55 100 80 55 70 105

West Medium & Small 105 100 75 110 60 105 75 70 95 75

Northeast Very Small 115 120 100 120 60 100 85 100 100 100

Midwest Very Small 135 120 85 110 60 80 75 55 80 105

South Very Small 130 110 100 105 55 100 80 55 70 105

West Very Small 130 100 75 110 60 105 65 70 95 75

LSL indicates a relatively long service life for the material resulting from some combination of benign ground conditions and 

evolved laying practices etc.

SSL indicates a relatively short service life for the material resulting from some combination of harsh ground conditions and 

early laying practices, etc.

Figure 5: Average Estimated Service Lives by Pipe Materials (average years of service)
 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge 9

Figure 6: Aggregate Needs for Investment in Water Mains Through 2035 and 2050, by Region

2011-2035 Totals

(2010 $M) Replacement Growth Total

Northeast $92,218 $16,525 $108,744

Midwest $146,997 $25,222 $172,219

South $204,357 $302,782 $507,139

West $82,866 $153,756 $236,622

Total $526,438 $498,285 $1,024,724

2011-2050 Totals

(2010 $M) Replacement Growth Total

Northeast $155,101 $23,200 $178,301

Midwest $242,487 $36,755 $279,242

South $394,219 $492,493 $886,712

West $159,476 $249,794 $409,270

Total $951,283 $802,242 $1,753,525

reflected in Figure 5. Note that the actual lives of pipes may be quite different in a 

given utility. Because pipe life depends on many important local variables as well 

as upon utility practices, predicting the actual life expectancy of any given pipe is 

outside the scope of this study. Many utilities will have 

pipes that last much longer than these values suggest 

while others will have pipes that begin to fail sooner. 

However, these values have been validated as national 

“averages” by comparing them to actual field experience 

in a number of utilities throughout the country. The 

model also includes estimates of the indicative costs to 

replace each size category of pipe, as well as the cost 

to repair the projected number of pipe breaks over time 

according to pipe size.

The analysis of pipe replacement needs is compiled in 

the Nessie Model by combining the demographically 

based pipe inventories with the projected effective 

service lifetimes for each pipe type. This yields an 

estimate of how much pipe of each size in each region 

must be replaced in each of the coming 40 years. 

Factoring in the typical cost to replace these pipes, 

we derive an estimate of the total investment cost for 

each future year. The model then derives a series of 

graphs (the Nessie curves) that depict the amount of 

spending required in each future year to replace each 

of the different pipe types by utility size and region. 

Aggregating this information, we derived the dollar value 

of total drinking water infrastructure replacement needs 

over the coming 25 and 40 years for each utility size category per region, and for 

the United States.
10 Buried No LoNger: CoNfroNtiNg AmeriCA’s WAter iNfrAstruCture ChALLeNge

Key Findings

1. The Needs Are Large. Investment needs for buried drinking water 

infrastructure total more than $1 trillion nationwide over the next 25 years, 

assuming pipes are replaced at the end of their service lives and systems are 

expanded to serve growing populations. Delaying this investment could mean 

either increasing rates of pipe breakage and deteriorating water service, or 

suboptimal use of utility funds, such as paying more to repair broken pipes 

than the long-term cost of replacing them. Nationally, the need is close to 

evenly divided between replacement due to wear-out and needs generated 

by demographic changes (growth and migration). 

Over the coming 40-year period, through 2050, these needs exceed $1.7 trillion.

Replacement needs account for about 54% of the national total, with about 

46% attributable to population growth and migration over that period.

Figure 6 (previous page) shows aggregate needs for investment in water mains 

through 2050, due to wear-out and population growth.

2. Household Water Bills Will Go Up. Important caveats are 

necessary here, because there are many ways that the increased investment in 

water infrastructure can be allocated among customers. Variables include rate 

structures, how the investment is fi nanced, and other important local factors. But 

the level of investment required to replace worn-out pipes and maintain current 

levels of water service in the most affected communities could in some cases 

triple household water bills. This projection assumes the costs are spread evenly 

across the population in a “pay-as-you-go” approach (See “The Costs Keep 

Coming” below). Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the increasing cost of water that can 

be expected by households for replacement, and for replacement plus growth, 

respectively. The utility categories shown in these fi gures are presented to depict 

a range of household cost impacts, from the least-to-the-most affected utilities.

Figure 7: Costs per Household for Water Main Replacement by Utility Size and Region

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

2010

2020

2035

Cost per Household ($2010)

Years

Water Main Costs per Household: Replacement(constant $2010)

Midwest large

West medium

Northeast small

South very small
 Buried No LoNger: CoNfroNtiNg AmeriCA’s WAter iNfrAstruCture ChALLeNge 11

With respect to the cost of growth, other caveats are important. Many 

communities expect growth to pay or help pay for itself through developer fees, 

impact fees, or similar charges. In such communities, established residents will 

not be required to shoulder the cost of population growth to the extent that these 

fees recover those costs. But regardless of how the costs of replacement and 

growth are allocated among builders, newcomers, or established residents, the 

total cost that must be borne by the community will still rise. 

3. There Are Important Regional Differences. The growing 

national need affects different regions in different ways. In general, the South 

and the West will face the steepest investment challenges, with total needs 

accounting for considerably more than half the national total (see Figures 6 and 

9). This is largely attributable to the fact that the population of these regions is 

growing rapidly. In contrast, in the Northeast and Midwest, growth is a relatively 

small component of the projected need. However, the population shifts away 

from these regions complicate the infrastructure challenge, as there are fewer 

remaining local customers across whom to spread the cost of renewing their 

infrastructure. 

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

2010

2020

2035

Cost per Household ($2010)

Years

Water Main Costs per Household: Replacement + Growth (constant $2010)

Midwest large

West medium

Northeast small

South very small

Figure 8: Costs per Household for Water Main Replacement Plus Growth

Water Main Replacement:

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

20102015

2020

20252030

2035

2040

2045

2050

$

$

Millions

West

South

Midwest

Northeast

p

National Totals by Region (Millions 2010 $s)

Figure 9: Water Main Replacement Costs per Region
12 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge

This regional perspective reveals the inherent difficulty of managing infrastructure 

supply and demand. Although water pipes are fixed in place and long-lasting, the 

population that drives the demand for these assets is very mobile and dynamic. 

People move out of one community, leaving behind a pipe network of fixed 

size but with fewer customers to support it. They move into a new community, 

requiring that the water system there be expanded to serve the new customers. 

4. There Are Important Differences Based on System Size.

As with many other costs, small communities may find a steeper challenge ahead 

on water infrastructure. Small communities have fewer people, and those people 

are often more spread out, requiring more pipe “miles per customer” than larger 

systems. In the most affected small communities, the study suggests that a 

typical three-person household could see its drinking water bill increase by as 

much as $550 per year above current levels, simply to address infrastructure 

needs, depending as always on the caveats identified above. 

In the largest water systems, costs can be spread over a large population 

base. Needed investments would be consistent with annual per household 

cost increases ranging from roughly $75 to more 

than $100 per year by the mid-2030s, assuming 

the expenses were spread across the population 

in the year they were incurred. Figure 10 illustrates 

the differing total costs of required investment by 

system size. 

5. The Costs Keep Coming. The nationallevel investment we face will roughly double from 

about $13 billion a year in 2010 to almost 

$30 billion annually by the 2040s for replacement 

alone. If growth is included, needed investment 

must increase from a little over $30 billion today 

to nearly $50 billion over the same period. This level 

of investment must then be sustained for many years, 

if current levels of water service are to be maintained.

Many utilities will have to face these investment 

needs year after year, for at least several decades. 

That is, by the time the last cohort of pipes analyzed 

in this study (predominantly the pipes laid between 

the late 1800s and 1960) has been replaced in, for 

example, 2050, it may soon thereafter be time to 

begin replacing the pipes laid after 1960, and so on. 

In that respect, these capital outlays are unlike those 

required to build a new treatment plant or storage tank, where the capital costs 

are incurred up front and aren’t faced again for many years. Rather, infrastructure 

renewal investments are likely to be incurred each year over several decades. 

For that reason, many utilities may choose to finance infrastructure replacement 

on a “pay-as-you-go” basis rather than through debt financing.
 Buried No LoNger: CoNfroNtiNg AmeriCA’s WAter iNfrAstruCture ChALLeNge 13

Figure 10: Total Water Main Replacement and Growth Needs by System Size 

Very Small

Small

Medium

Large

6. Postponing Investment Only Makes the Problem Worse. 

Overlooking or postponing infrastructure renewal investments in the near term will 

only add to the scale of the challenge we face in the years to come. Postponing 

the investment steepens the slope of the investment curve that must ultimately 

be met, as shown in Figure 11 (next page). It also increases the odds of facing 

the high costs associated with water main breaks and other infrastructure 

failures. The good news is that not all of the $1 trillion investment through 2035 

must be made right now. There is time to make suitable plans and implement 

policies that will help address the longer-term challenge. The bad news is that the 

required investment level is growing, as more pipes continue to age and reach the 

end of their effective service lives. 

As daunting as the fi gures in this report are, the prospect of not making the 

necessary investment is even more chilling. Aging water mains are subject to 

more frequent breaks and other failures that can threaten public health and 

safety (such as compromising tap water quality and fi re-fi ghting fl ows). Buried 

infrastructure failures also may impose signifi cant damages (for example, through 

fl ooding and sinkholes), are costly to repair, disrupt businesses and residential 

communities, and waste precious water resources. These maladies weaken our 

economy and undermine our quality of life. As large as the cost of reinvestment 

may be, not undertaking it will be worse in the long run by almost any standard.

This suggests that a crucial responsibility for utility managers now and in 

the future is to develop the processes necessary to continually improve their 

understanding of the “replacement dynamics” of their own water systems. Those 

dynamics should be refl ected in an Asset Management Plan (AMP) and, of 

course, in a long-term capital investment plan. The 2006 AWWA Report Water 

Infrastructure at a Turning Point includes a full discussion of this issue.
14 Buried No LoNger: CoNfroNtiNg AmeriCA’s WAter iNfrAstruCture ChALLeNge

Conclusion

Because pipe assets last a long time, water systems that were built in the latter 

part of the 19th century and throughout much of the 20th century have, for the 

most part, never experienced the need for pipe replacement on a large scale. 

The dawn of the era in which these assets will need to be replaced puts a 

growing fi nancial stress on communities that will continually increase for 

decades to come. It adds large and hitherto unknown expenses to the more 

apparent above-ground spending required to meet regulatory standards and 

address other pressing needs.

It is important to reemphasize that there 

are signifi cant differences in the timing 

and magnitude of the challenges facing 

different regions of the country and 

different sizes of water systems. But the 

investments we describe in this report 

are real, they are large, and they are 

coming. 

The United States is reaching a 

crossroads and faces a diffi cult choice. 

We can incur the haphazard and 

growing costs of living with aging and 

failing drinking water infrastructure. 

Or, we can carefully prioritize and 

undertake drinking water infrastructure 

renewal investments to ensure that our 

water utilities can continue to reliably 

and cost-effectively support the public 

health, safety, and economic vitality of our communities. AWWA undertook this 

report to provide the best, most accurate information available about the scale 

and timing of these needed investments.

Figure 11: Effect of Deferring Investment Five Years with a Ten-Year Make-Up Period Millions
 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge 15

It is clear the era AWWA predicted a decade ago—the replacement era—has 

arrived. The issue of aging water infrastructure, which was buried for years, can 

be buried no longer. Ultimately, the cost of the renewal we face must come from 

local utility customers, through higher water rates. However, the magnitude 

of the cost and the associated affordability and other adverse impacts on 

communities—as well as the varying degrees of impact to be felt across regions 

and across urban and rural areas—suggest that there is a key role for states and 

the federal government as well. In particular, states and the federal government 

can help with a careful and cost-effective program that lowers the cost of 

necessary investments to our communities, such as the creation of a credit 

support program—for example, AWWA’s proposed Water Infrastructure Finance 

and Innovation Authority (WIFIA). 

Finally, in many cases, difficult choices may need to be made between competing 

needs if water bills are to be kept affordable. Water utilities are willing to ask 

their customers to invest more, but it’s important this investment be in things 

that bring the greatest actual benefit to the community. Only in that spirit can 

we achieve the goal to which we all aspire, the reliable provision of safe and 

affordable water to all Americans.
16 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge

Estimated Distribution of Mains by Material

Northeast and Midwest

South and West

Proportion of 2010 Systems Built by Year

Northeast

Midwest

South

West

Investment for Replacement Plus Growth, 

by Region and Size of Utility

Northeast

Large

Medium

Small

Very Small

Midwest

Large

Medium

Small

Very Small

South

Large

Medium

Small

Very Small

West

Large

Medium

Small

Very Small

Household Cost of Needed Investment 

by Region and Size of Utility

Northeast

Large

Medium

Small

Very Small

Midwest

Large

Medium

Small

Very Small

South

Large

Medium

Small

Very Small

West

Large

Medium

Small

Very Small

Additional Information and Resources. 

A full and robust infrastructure analysis is an indispensable tool for decision 

making by water and wastewater utilities. This report does not substitute for 

such detailed local analysis for purposes of designing an infrastructure asset 

management program for individual utilities.

Additional information is available from AWWA concerning asset management.  

Particular attention should be given to the WITAF reports Dawn of the 

Replacement Era, Avoiding Rate Shock, Thinking Outside the Bill and Water 

Infrastructure at a Turning Point. In addition, Manual M1, Principles of Water 

Rates, Fees, and Charges, and the AWWA Utility Management Standards may be 

helpful. For more information, visit the AWWA Bookstore at www.awwa.org/store.

A number of graphs and figures from this report are also available through the 

AWWA website at www.awwa.org/infrastructure. They include: 

www.awwa.org/infrastructure
 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge 17

CI CICL 

(LSL)

CICL 

(SSL)

DI 

(LSL)

DI 

(SSL)

AC 

(LSL)

AC 

(SSL)

PVC CI CICL 

(LSL)

CICL 

(SSL)

DI 

(LSL)

DI 

(SSL)

AC 

(SSL)

AC 

(LSL)

PVC CI CICL 

(LSL)

CICL 

(SSL)

DI 

(LSL)

AC 

(LSL)

Steel Conc 

& 

PCCP

<6 inch diameter 6-10 inch diameter >10 inch diameter

1870 100% 100% 100%

1880 100% 100% 100%

1890 100% 100% 100%

1900 100% 100% 100%

1910 100% 100% 100%

1920 100% 100% 100%

1930 50% 30% 20% 50% 30% 20% 50% 30% 20%

1940 20% 60% 20% 20% 60% 20% 20% 40% 20% 20%

1950 60% 20% 20% 60% 20% 20% 40% 10% 20% 30%

1960 50% 10% 20% 20% 50% 10% 20% 20% 35% 5% 10% 20% 30%

1970 20% 40% 40% 20% 40% 40% 50% 20% 30%

1980 25% 30% 45% 25% 35% 40% 60% 15% 25%

1990 50% 5% 45% 50% 5% 45% 60% 15% 25%

2000 55% 45% 55% 45% 60% 15% 25%

2010 55% 45% 55% 45% 60% 15% 25%

2020 55% 45% 55% 45% 60% 15% 25%

2030 55% 45% 55% 45% 60% 15% 25%

Steel and PCCP pipe not in widespread use in sizes under 10 inches.

CI: cast iron; CICL: cast iron cement lined; DI: ductile iron; AC: asbestos cement; PV: polyvinyl chloride; PCCP: prestressed concrete cylinder pipe

Estimated Distribution of Mains by Material Over Time

Northeast & Midwest Regions

The regions are combined because they share similar dynmaics for this distribution.

Note: 

"LSL" indicates a relatively long service life for the material resulting from some 

combination of benign ground conditions and evolved laying practices etc.

 "SSL" indicates a relatively short service life for the material resulting from some 

combination of harsh ground conditions and early laying practices etc.
18 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge

CI CICL 

(LSL)

CICL 

(SSL)

DI 

(LSL)

DI 

(SSL)

AC 

(LSL)

AC 

(SSL)

PVC CI CICL 

(LSL)

CICL 

(SSL)

DI 

(LSL)

DI 

(SSL)

AC 

(LSL)

AC 

(SSL)

PVC CI CICL 

(LSL)

CICL 

(SSL)

DI 

(LSL)

AC 

(LSL)

Steel Conc 

& 

PCCP

<6 inch diameter 6-10 inch diameter >10 inch diameter

1870 100% 100% 100%

1880 100% 100% 100%

1890 100% 100% 100%

1900 100% 100% 100%

1910 100% 100% 100%

1920 100% 100% 100%

1930 50% 30% 20% 50% 30% 20% 50% 30% 20%

1940 70% 30% 70% 30% 50% 30% 20%

1950 25% 40% 35% 25% 40% 35% 40% 15% 25% 20%

1960 25% 2% 3% 40% 30% 25% 2% 3% 40% 30% 40% 5% 10% 25% 20%

1970 10% 10% 10% 40% 30% 10% 10% 10% 40% 30% 45% 10% 25% 20%

1980 25% 25% 50% 30% 30% 40% 60% 20% 20%

1990 45% 5% 50% 50% 5% 45% 60% 20% 20%

2000 50% 50% 50% 50% 60% 20% 20%

2010 50% 50% 50% 50% 60% 20% 20%

2020 50% 50% 50% 50% 60% 20% 20%

2030 50% 50% 50% 50% 60% 20% 20%

Steel and PCCP pipe not in widespread use in sizes under 10 inches.

CI: cast iron; CICL: cast iron cement lined; DI: ductile iron; AC: asbestos cement; PV: polyvinyl chloride; PCCP: prestressed concrete cylinder pipe

Estimated Distribution of Mains by Material Over Time

South & West Regions

The regions are combined because they share similar dynmaics for this distribution.

Note: 

"LSL" indicates a relatively long service life for the material resulting from some 

combination of benign ground conditions and evolved laying practices etc.

 "SSL" indicates a relatively short service life for the material resulting from some 

combination of harsh ground conditions and early laying practices etc.
 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge 19

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010

Proportion of Current System Built by Decade: All Regions

Northeast Very Small

Northeast Medium & Small

Northeast Large

Midwest Very Small

Midwest Medium & Small

Midwest Large

South Very Small

South Medium & Small

South Large

West Very Small

West Medium & Small

West Large

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010

Proportion of Current System Built by Decade: Northeast

Northeast Very Small

Northeast Medium & Small

Northeast Large
20 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge

Proportion of Current System Built by Decade: Midwest

Proportion of Current System Built by Decade: South

South Very Small

South Medium & Small

South Large

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010

Midwest Very Small

Midwest Medium & Small

Midwest Large

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010

100%

120%

Proportion of Current System Built by Decade: South

West Very Small

West Medium & Small

West Large
 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge 21

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010

Proportion of Current System Built by Decade: South

West Very Small

West Medium & Small

West Large
22 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge

$0.0

$200.0

$400.0

$600.0

$800.0

$1,000.0

$1,200.0

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Millions

NEL PCCP + Conc.

NEL Steel

NEL PVC

NEL AC

NEL DI

NEL CICL

NEL CI

Growth

Investment for Replacement & Growth

Northeast Large

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Millions

NEM PCCP + Conc.

NEM Steel

NEM PVC

NEM AC

NEM DI

NEM CICL

NEM CI

Growth

Investment for Replacement & Growth

Northeast Medium

CI: cast iron; CICL: cast iron cement lined; DI: ductile iron; AC: asbestos cement; PV: polyvinyl chloride; 

PCCP: prestressed concrete cylinder pipe

CI: cast iron; CICL: cast iron cement lined; DI: ductile iron; AC: asbestos cement; PV: polyvinyl chloride; 

PCCP: prestressed concrete cylinder pipe

The charts show needs for replacement of particular types of pipe and for growth (see the keys below 

and to the right of the chart). An artifact of the model and US Census data result in an apparent upward 

or downward “spike” in growth-related needs between certain decades. In reality, the apparent sudden 

shift in growth-related needs will be spread more evenly over the years bridging each decade to the next.
 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge 23

Investment for Replacement & Growth

Northeast Small

Investment for Replacement & Growth

Northeast Very Small

CI: cast iron; CICL: cast iron cement lined; DI: ductile iron; AC: asbestos cement; PV: polyvinyl chloride; 

PCCP: prestressed concrete cylinder pipe

CI: cast iron; CICL: cast iron cement lined; DI: ductile iron; AC: asbestos cement; PV: polyvinyl chloride; 

PCCP: prestressed concrete cylinder pipe

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Millions

NES PCCP + Conc.

NES Steel

NES PVC

NES AC

NES DI

NES CICL

NES CI

Growth

$0.0

$200.0

$400.0

$600.0

$800.0

$1,000.0

$1,200.0

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Millions

NEVS PCCP + Conc.

NEVS Steel

NEVS PVC

NEVS AC

NEVS DI

NEVS CICL

NEVS CI

Growth CAPEX

The charts show needs for replacement of particular types of pipe and for growth (see the keys below 

and to the right of the chart). An artifact of the model and US Census data result in an apparent upward 

or downward “spike” in growth-related needs between certain decades. In reality, the apparent sudden 

shift in growth-related needs will be spread more evenly over the years bridging each decade to the next.
24 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge

Investment for Replacement & Growth

Midwest Large

Investment for Replacement & Growth

Midwest Medium

CI: cast iron; CICL: cast iron cement lined; DI: ductile iron; AC: asbestos cement; PV: polyvinyl chloride; 

PCCP: prestressed concrete cylinder pipe

CI: cast iron; CICL: cast iron cement lined; DI: ductile iron; AC: asbestos cement; PV: polyvinyl chloride; 

PCCP: prestressed concrete cylinder pipe

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Millions

MWL PCCP + Conc.

MWL Steel

MWL PVC

MWL AC

MWL DI

MWL CICL

MWL CI

Growth

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Millions

MWM PCCP + Conc.

MWM Steel

MWM PVC

MWM AC

MWM DI

MWM CICL

MWM CI

Growth

The charts show needs for replacement of particular types of pipe and for growth (see the keys below 

and to the right of the chart). An artifact of the model and US Census data result in an apparent upward 

or downward “spike” in growth-related needs between certain decades. In reality, the apparent sudden 

shift in growth-related needs will be spread more evenly over the years bridging each decade to the next.
 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge 25

Investment for Replacement & Growth

Midwest Small

Investment for Replacement & Growth

Midwest Very Small

CI: cast iron; CICL: cast iron cement lined; DI: ductile iron; AC: asbestos cement; PV: polyvinyl chloride; 

PCCP: prestressed concrete cylinder pipe

CI: cast iron; CICL: cast iron cement lined; DI: ductile iron; AC: asbestos cement; PV: polyvinyl chloride; 

PCCP: prestressed concrete cylinder pipe

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Millions

MWS PCCP + Conc.

MWS Steel

MWS PVC

MWS AC

MWS DI

MWS CICL

MWS CI

Growth

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Millions

MWVS PCCP + Conc.

MWVS Steel

MWVS PVC

MWVS AC

MWVS DI

MWVS CICL

MWVS CI

Growth

The charts show needs for replacement of particular types of pipe and for growth (see the keys below 

and to the right of the chart). An artifact of the model and US Census data result in an apparent upward 

or downward “spike” in growth-related needs between certain decades. In reality, the apparent sudden 

shift in growth-related needs will be spread more evenly over the years bridging each decade to the next.
26 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge

Investment for Replacement & Growth

South Large

Investment for Replacement & Growth

South Medium

CI: cast iron; CICL: cast iron cement lined; DI: ductile iron; AC: asbestos cement; PV: polyvinyl chloride; 

PCCP: prestressed concrete cylinder pipe

CI: cast iron; CICL: cast iron cement lined; DI: ductile iron; AC: asbestos cement; PV: polyvinyl chloride; 

PCCP: prestressed concrete cylinder pipe

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

$4,500

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Millions

SL PCCP + Conc.

SL Steel

SL PVC

SL AC

SL DI

SL CICL

SL CI

Growth

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Millions

SM PCCP + Conc.

SM Steel

SM PVC

SM AC

SM DI

SM CICL

SM CI

Growth

The charts show needs for replacement of particular types of pipe and for growth (see the keys below 

and to the right of the chart). An artifact of the model and US Census data result in an apparent upward 

or downward “spike” in growth-related needs between certain decades. In reality, the apparent sudden 

shift in growth-related needs will be spread more evenly over the years bridging each decade to the next.
 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge 27

Investment for Replacement & Growth

South Small

Investment for Replacement & Growth

South Very Small

CI: cast iron; CICL: cast iron cement lined; DI: ductile iron; AC: asbestos cement; PV: polyvinyl chloride; 

PCCP: prestressed concrete cylinder pipe

CI: cast iron; CICL: cast iron cement lined; DI: ductile iron; AC: asbestos cement; PV: polyvinyl chloride; 

PCCP: prestressed concrete cylinder pipe

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Millions

SS PCCP + Conc.

SS Steel

SS PVC

SS AC

SS DI

SS CICL

SS CI

Growth

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Millions

SVS PCCP + Conc.

SVS Steel

SVS PVC

SVS AC

SVS DI

SVS CICL

SVS CI

Growth

The charts show needs for replacement of particular types of pipe and for growth (see the keys below 

and to the right of the chart). An artifact of the model and US Census data result in an apparent upward 

or downward “spike” in growth-related needs between certain decades. In reality, the apparent sudden 

shift in growth-related needs will be spread more evenly over the years bridging each decade to the next.
28 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge

Investment for Replacement & Growth

West Large

Investment for Replacement & Growth

West Medium

CI: cast iron; CICL: cast iron cement lined; DI: ductile iron; AC: asbestos cement; PV: polyvinyl chloride; 

PCCP: prestressed concrete cylinder pipe

CI: cast iron; CICL: cast iron cement lined; DI: ductile iron; AC: asbestos cement; PV: polyvinyl chloride; 

PCCP: prestressed concrete cylinder pipe

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Millions

WL PCCP + Conc.

WL Steel

WL PVC

WL AC

WL DI

WL CICL

WL CI

Growth

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Millions

WM PCCP + Conc.

WM Steel

WM PVC

WM AC

WM DI

WM CICL

WM CI

Growth

The charts show needs for replacement of particular types of pipe and for growth (see the keys below 

and to the right of the chart). An artifact of the model and US Census data result in an apparent upward 

or downward “spike” in growth-related needs between certain decades. In reality, the apparent sudden 

shift in growth-related needs will be spread more evenly over the years bridging each decade to the next.
 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge 29

Investment for Replacement & Growth

West Small

Investment for Replacement & Growth

West Very Small

CI: cast iron; CICL: cast iron cement lined; DI: ductile iron; AC: asbestos cement; PV: polyvinyl chloride; 

PCCP: prestressed concrete cylinder pipe

CI: cast iron; CICL: cast iron cement lined; DI: ductile iron; AC: asbestos cement; PV: polyvinyl chloride; 

PCCP: prestressed concrete cylinder pipe

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Millions

WS PCCP + Conc.

WS Steel

WS PVC

WS AC

WS DI

WS CICL

WS CI

Growth

$0.0

$500.0

$1,000.0

$1,500.0

$2,000.0

$2,500.0

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Millions

WVS PCCP + Conc.

WVS Steel

WVS PVC

WVS AC

WVS DI

WVS CICL

WVS CI

Growth

The charts show needs for replacement of particular types of pipe and for growth (see the keys below 

and to the right of the chart). An artifact of the model and US Census data result in an apparent upward 

or downward “spike” in growth-related needs between certain decades. In reality, the apparent sudden 

shift in growth-related needs will be spread more evenly over the years bridging each decade to the next.
30 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

$100

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Repl. + Growth/Household Replacement/Household

Household Cost of Needed Investment 

for Replacement Plus Growth*

Northeast Large

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Repl. + Growth/Household Replacement/Household

Household Cost of Needed Investment 

for Replacement Plus Growth*

Northeast Medium

*This assumes costs are spread evenly across households of 2.6 persons each, based on data from the US Census.

*This assumes costs are spread evenly across households of 2.6 persons each, based on data from the US Census.

The charts show per household costs for replacement, and for replacement plus growth. The model assumes 

costs are spread evenly over households averaging 2.6 persons per household in accordance with US Census 

data. An artifact of the model and US Census data result in an apparent upward or downward “spike” in growthrelated needs between certain decades. In reality, the apparent sudden shift in growth-related needs will be 

spread more evenly over the years bridging each decade to the next.”
Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge 31

Household Cost of Needed Investment 

for Replacement Plus Growth*

Northeast Small

Household Cost of Needed Investment 

for Replacement Plus Growth*

Northeast Very Small

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Repl. + Growth/Household Replacement/Household

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Repl. + Growth/Household Replacement/Household

*This assumes costs are spread evenly across households of 2.6 persons each, based on data from the US Census.

*This assumes costs are spread evenly across households of 2.6 persons each, based on data from the US Census.

The charts show per household costs for replacement, and for replacement plus growth. The model assumes 

costs are spread evenly over households averaging 2.6 persons per household in accordance with US Census 

data. An artifact of the model and US Census data result in an apparent upward or downward “spike” in growthrelated needs between certain decades. In reality, the apparent sudden shift in growth-related needs will be 

spread more evenly over the years bridging each decade to the next.”
32 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge

Household Cost of Needed Investment 

for Replacement Plus Growth*

Midwest Large

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

$100

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Repl. + Growth/Household Replacement/Household

*This assumes costs are spread evenly across households of 2.6 persons each, based on data from the US Census.

Household Cost of Needed Investment 

for Replacement Plus Growth*

Midwest Medium

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Repl. + Growth/Household Replacement/Household

*This assumes costs are spread evenly across households of 2.6 persons each, based on data from the US Census.

The charts show per household costs for replacement, and for replacement plus growth. The model assumes 

costs are spread evenly over households averaging 2.6 persons per household in accordance with US Census 

data. An artifact of the model and US Census data result in an apparent upward or downward “spike” in growthrelated needs between certain decades. In reality, the apparent sudden shift in growth-related needs will be 

spread more evenly over the years bridging each decade to the next.”
Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge 33

Household Cost of Needed Investment 

for Replacement Plus Growth*

Midwest Small

Household Cost of Needed Investment 

for Replacement Plus Growth*

Midwest Very Small

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Repl. + Growth/Household Replacement/Household

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Repl. + Growth/Household Replacement/Household

*This assumes costs are spread evenly across households of 2.6 persons each, based on data from the US Census.

*This assumes costs are spread evenly across households of 2.6 persons each, based on data from the US Census.

The charts show per household costs for replacement, and for replacement plus growth. The model assumes 

costs are spread evenly over households averaging 2.6 persons per household in accordance with US Census 

data. An artifact of the model and US Census data result in an apparent upward or downward “spike” in growthrelated needs between certain decades. In reality, the apparent sudden shift in growth-related needs will be 

spread more evenly over the years bridging each decade to the next.”
34 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge

Household Cost of Needed Investment 

for Replacement Plus Growth*

South Large

Household Cost of Needed Investment 

for Replacement Plus Growth*

South Medium

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Repl. + Growth/Household Replacement/Household

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Repl. + Growth/Household Replacement/Household

*This assumes costs are spread evenly across households of 2.6 persons each, based on data from the US Census.

*This assumes costs are spread evenly across households of 2.6 persons each, based on data from the US Census.

The charts show per household costs for replacement, and for replacement plus growth. The model assumes 

costs are spread evenly over households averaging 2.6 persons per household in accordance with US Census 

data. An artifact of the model and US Census data result in an apparent upward or downward “spike” in growthrelated needs between certain decades. In reality, the apparent sudden shift in growth-related needs will be 

spread more evenly over the years bridging each decade to the next.”
Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge 35

Household Cost of Needed Investment 

for Replacement Plus Growth*

South Small

Household Cost of Needed Investment 

for Replacement Plus Growth*

South Very Small

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Repl. + Growth/Household Replacement/Household

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

$1,000

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Repl. + Growth/Household Replacement/Household

*This assumes costs are spread evenly across households of 2.6 persons each, based on data from the US Census.

*This assumes costs are spread evenly across households of 2.6 persons each, based on data from the US Census.

The charts show per household costs for replacement, and for replacement plus growth. The model assumes 

costs are spread evenly over households averaging 2.6 persons per household in accordance with US Census 

data. An artifact of the model and US Census data result in an apparent upward or downward “spike” in growthrelated needs between certain decades. In reality, the apparent sudden shift in growth-related needs will be 

spread more evenly over the years bridging each decade to the next.”
36 Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge

Household Cost of Needed Investment 

for Replacement Plus Growth*

West Large

Household Cost of Needed Investment 

for Replacement Plus Growth*

West Medium

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Repl. + Growth/Household Replacement/Household

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Repl. + Growth/Household Replacement/Household

*This assumes costs are spread evenly across households of 2.6 persons each, based on data from the US Census.

*This assumes costs are spread evenly across households of 2.6 persons each, based on data from the US Census.

The charts show per household costs for replacement, and for replacement plus growth. The model assumes 

costs are spread evenly over households averaging 2.6 persons per household in accordance with US Census 

data. An artifact of the model and US Census data result in an apparent upward or downward “spike” in growthrelated needs between certain decades. In reality, the apparent sudden shift in growth-related needs will be 

spread more evenly over the years bridging each decade to the next.”
Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge 37

Household Cost of Needed Investment 

for Replacement Plus Growth*

West Small

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Repl. + Growth/Household Replacement/Household

*This assumes costs are spread evenly across households of 2.6 persons each, based on data from the US Census.

Household Cost of Needed Investment 

for Replacement Plus Growth*

West Very Small

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

201020152020202520302035204020452050

Repl. + Growth/Household Replacement/Household

*This assumes costs are spread evenly across households of 2.6 persons each, based on data from the US Census.

The charts show per household costs for replacement, and for replacement plus growth. The model assumes 

costs are spread evenly over households averaging 2.6 persons per household in accordance with US Census 

data. An artifact of the model and US Census data result in an apparent upward or downward “spike” in growthrelated needs between certain decades. In reality, the apparent sudden shift in growth-related needs will be 

spread more evenly over the years bridging each decade to the next.”