Charting 

New Waters

A Call to Action to Address 

U.S. Freshwater Challenges

Issued by the Participants of 

The Johnson Foundation 

September 2010 Freshwater Summit
i

It has been said there are two ways to 

achieve change — through crisis or through 

leadership. Freshwater is too important to 

our ecosystems, communities and national 

security to wait for a crisis.

In the fall of 2008, The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread 

initiated The Freshwater Forum with one goal in mind: to ensure the sustainability and resilience of our nation’s freshwater 

resources. This series of conferences was unique and unprecedented, engaging a broad range of leading national experts 

to discuss critical dimensions of freshwater issues including; the impacts of climate change on freshwater resources, 

infrastructure and the built environment, agriculture and food 

production, the water/energy interface and public health.

These conferences set the stage for The Johnson Foundation 

Freshwater Summit held June 9, 2010, at which leaders from 

business, nongovernmental organizations, agriculture, 

academia, government, foundations and communities 

convened to develop a set of consensus recommendations 

to address U.S. freshwater challenges. From their diverse 

perspectives and collective insight, an important call to 

action toward sustainable and resilient U.S. freshwater 

resources has emerged. 

The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread brings no preconceived ideas nor fi xed agendas to this or any issue on which 

we focus. Our conferences are intimate and distinctive in the 

diversity of perspectives brought to the table. Dialogue is 

candid, collegial and authentic in an environment that fosters 

the trust and collaboration needed to identify innovative yet 

broadly supported solutions that have impact.
ii Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address U.S. Freshwater Challenges
iii

Preamble 1

A Vision for Sustainable and Resilient 5

U.S. Freshwater Resources 

Principles for Action 7

Call to Action 11

Recommendations 13

Commitments to Action 39

Contributors 41

Endnotes 45

A Call to Action to Address 

U.S. Freshwater Challenges

Issued by the Participants of 

The Johnson Foundation 

Freshwater Summit

Charting 

New Waters
Preamble
Preamble 2

Building on its long history of catalyzing environmental 

and community solutions and approaching issues without 

preconceived ideas or fi xed agendas, The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread convened a wide range of experts in a 

series of working session conferences to better understand 

and bring national attention to the myriad challenges facing 

United States freshwater resources, and the most promising 

solutions to address them. Collectively entitled The Johnson 

Foundation Freshwater Forum, the sessions reached across 

disciplines and interest group affi liations and involved more 

than 100 experts who approach freshwater issues from diff erent vantage points, including climate science, municipal water management, ecosystem protection, agriculture and food 

production, energy generation, manufacturing, public health 

and more. The questions posed to these experts revolved 

around what it will take to achieve a sustainable and resilient 

freshwater system by the year 2025, the approximate time 

it will take for today’s children to enter adulthood. On June 

9, 2010, leaders representing business, nongovernmental 

organizations, agriculture, academia, government, foundations and communities convened at The Johnson Foundation 

Freshwater Summit to build on the fi ndings of The Freshwater 

Forum conferences and chart a new course for the future of 

U.S. freshwater resources.

Throughout The Freshwater Forum sessions, there was broad 

consensus among participants that our current path will, 

unless changed, lead us to a national freshwater crisis in the 

foreseeable future. This reality encompasses a wide array of 

challenges – water pollution and scarcity; competing urban, 

rural and ecosystem water needs; climate change; environmental and public health impacts; and a variety of economic 

implications – that collectively amount to a tenuous trajectory for the future of the nation’s freshwater resources. 

While the nation has made much progress over the past century in addressing freshwater challenges, many still persist. 

Some challenges are acute and obvious. The severe drought 

that struck the southeast in 2007 left Georgia, Alabama and 

Florida locked in an interstate confl ict over the management of Lake Lanier.1

 In California’s Central Valley, a drought, 

economic recession and legal rulings to reallocate water 

supplies to protect ecosystems resulted in water management decisions that contributed to lost jobs and revenue for 

the region’s agriculture industry in 2009. Competition among 

agricultural, urban and environmental water uses in the 

Central Valley remains a contentious situation. The 1993 Cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee – which contaminated 

the city’s drinking water supply – left more than 400,000 

Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address U.S. Freshwater 

Challenges represents the culmination of an intensive collaborative 

effort that began in 2008.
3 Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address U.S. Freshwater Challenges

residents ill and an estimated 69 people dead and resulted 

in an estimated $96.2 million in medical costs and productivity losses.2

 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

estimates that there are 240,000 water main breaks per year 

in the United States. System breaks tend to increase substantially toward the end of a system’s service lifespan, which is 

evident in the Midwest where large utility breaks increased 

from 250 per year to 2,200 per year over a 19-year period.3

In 2007, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission 

reported 2,129 breaks in Montgomery and Prince George’s 

County, Maryland – a 90-year record.4 The U.S. Geological 

Survey estimates that U.S. water distribution systems lose 1.7 

trillion gallons of water per year at an estimated annual cost 

to the nation of $2.6 billion.5

Other challenges are more subtle and chronic. The increasing 

presence of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in our rivers and 

drinking water supplies is an emerging concern and the suspected cause behind 80 percent of male bass in the Potomac 

River now exhibiting female sex traits. More than 90 percent 

of the fi ve million people in the Washington, D.C., metro area 

get their drinking water from the Potomac, yet we have a 

poor understanding of the concentrations and long-term 

human health impacts of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in 

drinking water.6 The United States leads the world in number 

of crayfi sh species, but half are in jeopardy, and 40 percent 

of freshwater fi sh and amphibians are at risk.7 The slow but 

steady depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer (i.e., the High Plains 

Aquifer), the main source of groundwater for irrigating crops 

in America’s breadbasket, has already left parts of Texas 

without local water supplies.8 Moreover, a 2003 survey by the 

U.S. General Accounting Offi ce revealed that at least 36 state 

water managers expected to experience water shortages in 

their states by 2013.9

Meanwhile our growing population and changing environmental conditions continue to drive the nation toward 

inevitable and diffi cult freshwater management decisions. 

Many challenges will center on balancing municipal, rural 

and ecosystem supply needs. We must ensure the long-term 

viability of safe, aff ordable and effi cient food production 

while also meeting municipal and industrial water needs. 

We need to reduce the water demands and impacts of energy 

generation while continuing to produce enough energy to 

sustain our economy. We must work to mitigate the causes of 

climate change and to adapt to its impacts on the hydrologic 

cycle, which pose serious risks to freshwater supply and 

quality across large areas of the nation.10

U.S. Faces Mounting Water Quantity 

and Quality Challenges 

Climate change is altering water supplies, and scientists predict it will further exacerbate water quantity 

challenges such as drought, flooding and reduced 

snowpack storage. Under the business-as-usual 

scenario of demand growth, water supplies in 70 

percent of U.S. counties may be threatened by climate 

change and one-third may be at high risk by 2050.11

Meanwhile, on the water quality side, 50 percent of 

our rivers and streams; 66 percent of our lakes, reservoirs and ponds; and 36 percent of our wetlands are 

impaired for at least some designated uses, including 

many for fishing and swimming.12
4

Freshwater Forum participants emphasized the broad scope 

and urgency of freshwater problems in the United States, 

while underscoring that we are dealing with 21st century 

freshwater problems using 20th century strategies and technologies, and falling short. On a more optimistic note, the 

Forum deliberations also made it clear that solutions to most, 

if not all, of our freshwater challenges are within reach. The 

Johnson Foundation believes this is indeed the case, and that 

those solutions are more likely to be found and implemented 

when smart, good-willed people with diverse expertise attack complex problems collaboratively. The Freshwater Forum

affi rmed this philosophy as participants from all sectors 

engaged in thoughtful discussion, identifying freshwater 

challenges as well as innovative solutions with the cumulative potential to set the nation on a new trajectory toward 

sustainable and resilient freshwater resources. It has been 

said there are two ways to achieve change – through crisis or 

through leadership. Freshwater is too important to our economic vitality, ecosystems, communities and national security 

to wait for a crisis, so The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread 

and our many partners and advisors have opted for leadership. Together we aim to harness the ingenuity and collective 

spirit that defi ne the United States and direct it toward vigorously addressing the nation’s freshwater challenges. 

As the convenor of The Freshwater Forum and The Freshwater 

Summit, The Johnson Foundation is honored to present this 

Call to Action to Address U.S. Freshwater Challenges. The vision, 

principles and recommendations developed by the parties to 

this Call to Action were designed to bring overdue attention 

to our nation’s freshwater challenges and catalyze action to 

address them. The Call to Action will also serve as a roadmap 

for the ongoing work of The Johnson Foundation, which is 

committed to using our time-honored convening expertise 

and facilities to support the work that lies ahead. The Foundation looks forward to continuing to support collaboration 

among the network of people that has coalesced around this 

process, and to helping forge new relationships in pursuit of 

sustainable and resilient U.S. freshwater resources. 

Preamble
A Vision

for Sustainable and Resilient 

U.S. Freshwater Resources
Freshwater is as essential to human survival as the air we 

breathe. Since the origin of civilization, water has been a 

central element and unifying force of society, economy and 

culture. Major human population centers have always developed near abundant sources of freshwater – for example, 

“Mesopotamia” literally means “land between two rivers.” 

“ Three essential [freshwater] goals are 

dependable and safe supplies for people, 

protection and management of the 

environmental systems through which 

[freshwater] moves, and efficient water use.”

– GILBERT F. WHITE 13

While these are widely understood truths, the United States 

has made only modest progress toward meeting the freshwater goals articulated by water management visionary Gilbert 

White more than 25 years ago. Though we have come a long 

way since the landmark freshwater legislation of the 1970s, 

we will never meet Gilbert White’s three essential goals if we 

continue to follow our current trajectory. 

We, the participants in The Johnson Foundation Freshwater 

Summit, see many opportunities to establish a more promising future for U.S. freshwater resources – a future that is 

sustainable and resilient. We see a future in which leaders in 

all sectors have the courage and tools to chart a new course 

that ensures access to clean freshwater for all Americans. 

We have a vision of institutions, organizations, communities 

and individuals who recognize that the health and safety of 

our natural and built freshwater systems warrant dedicated 

attention, investment and action. Streamlined and eff ective 

regulation and enforcement, collaborative problem solving, innovative local and regional strategies, technological 

innovation, integrated policy and management solutions, 

and co-benefi cial strategies and outcomes are the hallmarks 

of the new course we see for freshwater management and 

resources in the United States. 

We envision 

a future in which:

 America’s freshwater resources sustain our 

economic and social needs while enhancing 

environmental quality for future generations.

 Every region, state, town and citizen has 

enough water to meet their basic needs. 

 Parents know the water coming from their taps 

will safely quench their children’s thirst. 

 Every child, urban or rural, has a clean stream 

in which to play. 

 An abundance of fish and wildlife thrive in and 

around our streams, rivers and lakes. 

 Grandparents can teach their grandchildren to 

fish, knowing both their bodies and souls will 

be nourished. 

 And every person understands why a reliable 

supply of freshwater is critical for all our basic 

needs – from food production to electric power 

generation. 

In this future, our sustainable and resilient freshwater resources reinforce America’s preeminence 

as the land of opportunity, attracting new 

investment while providing an unparalleled 

quality of life.

A Vision 6
Principles for Action
The principles below represent truths held in common by 

Freshwater Summit participants. They illustrate why addressing our freshwater challenges should be a national priority, 

and what we need to consider when we take action so that 

our vision of sustainable and resilient freshwater resources 

for the United States will be realized.

We must act now 

because... 

Healthy and livable communities need clean 

and adequate freshwater

Freshwater is the critical link between public health and 

quality of life. Access to clean and adequate freshwater is 

arguably the most direct path to improving public health, 

because water aff ects all domains of human health. How we 

manage the forests and lands around our source waters and 

the water systems and services that serve our communities 

directly aff ects the health of terrestrial freshwater ecosystems 

and the estuaries and marine ecosystems they feed, as well as 

our physical and mental health and spiritual well-being. Every 

U.S. community needs access to clean drinking water, as well 

as adequate surface and groundwater resources for municipal, industrial, agricultural, recreational and ecological uses. 

We must reinvent how our cities, towns and rural communities interface with freshwater, to sustain healthy and livable 

communities in the 21st century and beyond. 

Reliable freshwater supplies are critical to U.S. 

economic security

Adequate and reliable freshwater supplies are an essential 

underpinning of U.S. economic security. Energy generation, 

manufacturing, food production and many activities of daily 

life in America are dependent on access to freshwater. An 

estimated 41 percent of the nation’s water withdrawals are 

being used for thermoelectric power generation, primarily 

coal, nuclear and natural gas.21 These power plants fuel our 

economy, lighting cities and towns and powering our factories. 

Public Health Depends On Clean Water

When piped water came to the United States in the 

mid-19th century, instances of waterborne diseases 

such as cholera and typhoid fever escalated because 

contaminated water could be delivered to more 

people from a common source. Cholera epidemics in 

New York City in 1832 and 1849 killed 8,500 people. 

In 1891 typhoid fever in Chicago killed 2,000. The 

introduction of chlorine in the early 20th century 

and a range of water pollution acts from the 1940s to 

1970s dramatically improved public health. Incidence 

of typhoid deaths dropped to near zero by 1940.14

Water Scarcity Impacts Energy Generation

In the last decade, water availability has begun to impact the reliability of power. In 2008, drought forced 

the temporary closure of a nuclear plant in Browns 

Ferry, Alabama, and shutdowns were threatened 

across the Southeast that summer.15 16 The California 

Energy Commission created a policy in 2003 that 

discourages the use of freshwater for power plant 

cooling. Power plant developers are responding by 

proposing projects that require less or no water.17

Population Growth Drives Water Demand

The nation’s population is projected to increase to 

392 million by 2050 – a 27 percent increase from the 

current figure of around 307 million.18 Our farmers 

and ranchers will need to produce food for these new 

mouths. Meanwhile, trends in water consumption 

show that, as our population has grown, the amount 

of water required for public supply – municipal, commercial and industrial purposes – has increased as 

well. Between 1950 and 2005, our population doubled 

and our water use for public supply tripled.19 However, as we have begun conservation measures, this 

gap is closing; between 2000 and 2005, our population 

increased 5 percent while public supply withdrawals 

increased by just 2 percent.20

Principles for Action 8
9 Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address U.S. Freshwater Challenges

Manufacturers are often water utilities’ largest customers, 

with cooling, process uses, cleaning, sanitation and steam 

generation being the most common water uses. Another 37 

percent of U.S. freshwater withdrawals go toward irrigated 

agriculture.22 Agricultural communities are the foundation 

of a stable food supply and integral to the nation’s economy 

and overall well-being. The United States agricultural sector 

is a net exporter of food, and provides a trade surplus that 

helps recover American dollars spent on imported goods. 

With global food demand predicted to double by 2030, continued production in the agricultural sector is critical to our 

long-term economic security, as well as global food security.23

The traditions of Eastern water law and the Western doctrine 

of prior appropriation, and the diff erences between them, 

must be acknowledged and respected as we seek freshwater 

solutions. Tourism is another key driver of many of our nation’s local economies, where vacationers go to fi sh, boat and 

swim in lakes, rivers and streams. Increasing water effi ciency 

in all sectors and ensuring that freshwater needs vital to our 

economic security are met into the future at an acceptable 

cost should be national priorities. Our historically plentiful 

freshwater supply has aff orded the nation an advantage in 

the global marketplace, and we must act now with urgency 

and focus to ensure we maintain that market advantage. 

Freshwater ecosystems have intrinsic value 

and are fundamental to our natural heritage 

and economic well-being

Healthy freshwater ecosystems and species provide goods 

and services for society, including water purifi cation, food 

and other quantifi able benefi ts. They also represent part of 

the nation’s natural heritage and have intrinsic value in and 

of themselves. U.S. freshwater biodiversity is exceptional 

on a global level. For example, the southeastern United 

States alone possess more than 600 native fi sh species.24 Yet 

many of the nation’s freshwater species have already been 

severely impacted or are threatened by human activities. 

For example, we have the most freshwater mussels species, 

but two-thirds are at risk of extinction and 10 percent may 

already be extinct.25 Freshwater mussels have long off ered 

value to humans as food and raw material for making tools 

and jewelry, and are now considered key indicators of water 

quality and ecosystem health as they are sensitive to pollution. But they also possess value within the ecosystems they 

help constitute, providing food for wildlife like muskrats and 

otters and acting as natural water purifi ers. We must keep 

the intrinsic value of ecosystems and species in mind as we 

develop and implement laws, regulations, policies and technologies to manage, conserve, restore and protect freshwater 

ecosystems. 

Ecosystems can experience abrupt, nonlinear 

change

While ecosystem change is normally slow and incremental, 

scientifi c evidence suggests ecosystems can change abruptly, 

with signifi cant detrimental eff ects on ecological and human 

well-being. Nonlinear changes occur when pressure on a particular ecosystem component crosses a threshold, sparking 

accelerated change that reverberates throughout the system. 

Human activity is reducing the resilience of many natural 

systems and increasing the possibility of crossing ecological 

thresholds. Although science can confi dently say that ecological thresholds exist, it is extremely diffi cult to predict at 

what point they will be crossed and whether the subsequent 

eff ects will be reversible. We must take a proactive, precautionary approach to foster the resilience of our freshwater 

ecosystems and avoid crossing ecological thresholds. 
When we act, we need to...

 Take bold steps and make intentional investments 

to transform our current trajectory toward freshwater 

crisis into one toward sustainable and resilient 

freshwater resources. 

 Support and empower visionary leaders at all scales 

of society that champion freshwater and facilitate 

collaboration across jurisdictions, disciplines and 

sectors to implement durable freshwater solutions.

 Design context-sensitive freshwater solutions that account for communities’ sociopolitical, economic and 

environmental dynamics and leverage local people’s 

sense of place, while adhering to relevant federal and 

state laws and policies. 

 Consider the potential impacts of freshwater resource 

solutions on all people and places, including minority 

and low-income urban and rural communities, and 

avoid solutions that benefit one sector, group or place 

at the undue expense of another, including future 

generations.

 Seek robust co-beneficial solutions and triple-bottomline outcomes that address environmental, economic 

and social equity challenges simultaneously in a 

cost-efficient manner.

 Generate sound science that accounts for the dynamic 

nature of freshwater systems and our emerging 

understanding of climate change impacts on water 

that can be shared in real-time to inform mitigation 

and adaptive management strategies. 

 Employ inclusive, fair and transparent public participation processes, including respectful governmentto-government consultation with indigenous peoples. 

 Target performance-based incentives and standards 

toward different freshwater users and innovators to 

drive solution-oriented behavioral and technological 

change. 

 Identify, share, replicate and scale-up the best 

freshwater solutions from across the nation.
Call to Action
Call to Action 12

We, the participants of The Johnson Foundation Freshwater Summit, 

collectively call on leaders in all sectors of society to address the 

myriad challenges facing the United States’ freshwater resources. 

Together we are representatives from business, nongovernmental 

organizations, agriculture, academia, government, foundations and 

communities. We are collaborating in our commitment to harness 

American ingenuity and develop a suite of innovative, integrated 

freshwater solutions that cut across traditional boundaries and 

counteract the inertia that has developed around freshwater 

management due to fragmented decision-making frameworks and 

other institutional obstacles. We urge other leaders to join us and 

do their part to advance the implementation of sustainable and 

resilient solutions to the full range of freshwater challenges we face. 

The time to lead is now.
Recommendations
Recommendations 14

We believe concerted implementation of the following consensus 

recommendations will set the nation on the right course to realize 

our vision of sustainable and resilient freshwater resources for 

current and future generations of Americans. We encourage leaders 

and actors in different sectors to adhere to the Principles for 

Action stated above as implementation of these recommendations 

is pursued. While we strongly support bold action and would like to 

see rapid transformational change, we acknowledge the incremental 

nature of decision making in a democratic society, and our recommendations reflect that reality.
15 Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address U.S. Freshwater Challenges

Improve Coordination 

of Freshwater Management 

Across Scales and Sectors

Challenges and Rationale

Our nation’s overly complex system of freshwater governance 

hinders our ability to fi x the full range of problems we face. It 

is imperative that our system of national standards and oversight allows for state and local actors to make and implement 

freshwater management decisions that make sense in terms 

of local watershed dynamics. At times their ability to do this 

is impeded by a lack of coordination among federal and state 

agencies, each of which is acting according to its legislative 

and regulatory mandates, but may not function eff ectively 

as a system. This lack of coordination can result in confusion 

at the state and local level, sometimes exacerbating the very 

problems they set out to solve. The missions and activities 

of the agencies, organizations and local-level actors dealing 

with freshwater issues need to be coordinated within and 

across diff erent sectors and scales of governance. Such coordination will create the necessary foundation to design and 

implement durable solutions that align with the principles 

and recommendations in this Call to Action. 

Convene a U.S. Freshwater Resources Commission 

We believe the nation would greatly benefi t from a diverse, 

multi-stakeholder commission to clarify and streamline the 

responsibilities and roles of agencies at diff erent levels of 

freshwater governance. We recommend that an appropriate 

entity convene a high-level freshwater resources commission 

with a focused mission, an explicit timeline with a clear start 

and end point for the completion of its work, and clear guidelines for reporting its fi ndings. The overarching goal of 
16

the commission should be to propose solutions that increase 

the integration and effi ciency of the existing patchwork of 

jurisdictional authorities overseeing management of the nation’s freshwater resources. Potential convening models that 

would impart authority and credibility to this cross-sector 

eff ort include a Presidential commission, a Congressional 

commission or a commission spearheaded by a private foundation or trust. Outlined below is a roadmap that we believe 

will be useful for convening and executing this much-needed 

collaborative eff ort. 

The commission’s charge should center on prioritizing 

opportunities and actions to address ineffi ciencies in the interplay between the diff erent authorities and roles of federal, 

state, local and tribal governments in managing freshwater 

resources. We believe this analysis would be most eff ectively 

accomplished by a multi-stakeholder commission comprised 

of individuals from all levels of government (including tribal 

governments), nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 

the agricultural sector, water and energy utilities, academia, 

tribes and communities that collectively represent all sectors 

and the geographic diversity of the nation. 

There are several specifi c tasks that we recommend the 

proposed commission execute as part of its charge. First, 

we recommend that the commission develop an integrated 

characterization of the water quality and quantity challenges 

facing the nation to create a platform for its examination 

of U.S. freshwater governance. The characterization eff ort 

should include: identifi cation of gaps in data and monitoring 

capacity and recommendations for fi lling them; articulation 

of key challenges to supplying an adequate amount of freshwater for the multiple uses for which it is needed (energy and 

food production, ecosystem health, industry, municipal use, 

recreation, etc.); and overview of the current state of technology, infrastructure (structural and nonstructural), human 

and fi nancial resource capacity available to implement and 

sustain workable solutions to key challenges. 

With the aforementioned integrated characterization as a 

platform, we recommend that the commission’s main purpose be to conduct an assessment of the current jurisdictional frameworks governing water quality and quantity management across geographic scales of governance and make 

recommendations about how to streamline intergovernmental interactions. The commission should examine current federal, state and local laws and regulations and other governing 

authorities for water quality and quantity management to 

identify barriers to and opportunities for: greater effi ciency 

and eff ectiveness of water policy and management; reducing stovepipes and eliminating confl icts and redundancies; 

and creating new authority to address emerging freshwater 

issues where necessary. Moreover, we recommend that this 

freshwater resources commission make recommendations 

for improving statutory authorities and establishing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve water-related 

disputes between stakeholders. A review of federal laws 

governing water quality and quantity management to assess 

whether changes are needed to promote a risk-based approach to climate change adaptation and associated freshwater management challenges is also needed. We acknowledge 

that the commission’s recommendations may include suggestions for legislative action by Congress. If that is the case, 

they should refl ect a respectful balance between the role of 

federal, state and local authorities and actors.

Recommendations
17 Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address U.S. Freshwater Challenges

We believe stronger linkages are needed between federal 

programs that provide important policy frameworks and 

guidance, and agencies and actors at diff erent levels of 

governance. Water is managed at the local level, so it is critical that leaders and water users within watersheds have an 

active role in decision making about and implementation 

of freshwater solutions. Therefore, we recommend that the 

commission identify opportunities to manage national water 

programs to better support local, state, tribal and regional 

programs and reinforce the capacity to develop and implement eff ective policies. We also see a need to integrate water 

considerations into other closely related policy arenas such as 

energy effi ciency and job creation. 

The last element of the proposed freshwater resources 

commission’s charge that we recommend is the articulation 

of an inspired vision for achieving durable solutions that 

perform successfully at the watershed scale, to frame the 

outcomes of the commission’s work. We suggest that the 

vision be grounded by illustrative examples of cooperative 

conservation and innovation from diff erent regions, states 

and watersheds. 

All Sectors Help Document Integrated 

Governance Approaches

We believe nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), academic research institutions and private-sector leaders must 

play an active, ongoing role informing policy makers, in parallel with eff orts such as the proposed freshwater resources 

commission recommended above, about ways to streamline 

and integrate freshwater governance without compromising 

ecological, economic or social outcomes. We recommend 

that NGOs, academic researchers, business and agriculture 

leaders, and other parties contribute information about successful freshwater governance models from diff erent regions 

and scales to a common online database that is accessible by 

all. These contributions should highlight approaches, models 

and success stories of streamlined and integrated regulation 

and enforcement, collaborative problem-solving, technological innovation, integrated policy and management solutions, 

and co-benefi cial strategies and outcomes – the hallmarks of 

the new trajectory we see for freshwater management and 

resources in the United States. Cooperative Conservation 

America’s website – a public forum for collecting and sharing 

the cooperative conservation stories, lessons, models and 

achievements of all Americans – provides a possible model 

for this eff ort.27

State and Local Leaders Seek Collaborative 

Solutions

State and local decision makers – government and nongovernment – play a key role in the implementation of freshwater management laws and regulations and are often in the 

best position to integrate the interests of diff erent stakeholders within a watershed. Since political boundaries typically 

do not align with watershed boundaries, we recommend 

that state and local leaders seek and seize opportunities to 

work across jurisdictions to fi nd integrated and co-benefi cial 

solutions that meet urban, rural and ecosystem needs. For 

example, an initiative entitled the Ag/Urban/Enviro Water 

Partnerships Drive Integrated 

Watershed Planning

The California Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Planning process promotes integrated 

planning within the watersheds of the state in a systematic way to ensure sustainable water uses, reliable 

water supplies, better water quality, environmental 

stewardship, efficient urban development, protection 

of agriculture and a strong economy. IRWM is accomplished through partnerships of local water providers, 

county governments, flood control districts, NGOs 

and state agencies. State funding for the IRWM planning and implementation of projects was authorized 

by two state multi-billion-dollar voter-passed propositions. This funding has resulted in IRWM plans 

for most of the state and funding for projects such 

as recycled water, ecosystem restoration, stormwater 

best management practices and desalination.26
18

Sharing Work Group, funded by the Walton Family Foundation, has brought together a group of urban, agricultural and 

environmental leaders to identify innovative, balanced water 

sharing strategies for the Colorado River Basin.28 This project 

and others like it may provide templates for cross-jurisdictional collaboration that could be applied to other Western 

watersheds. This type of approach will require many leaders 

to change from a competitive mindset to a collaborative approach in which parties come together to seek co-benefi cial 

outcomes. The key to these types of eff orts is the diversity 

and credibility of the participating stakeholders.

NGOs and Academia Coordinate to Support 

Co-Benefi cial Solutions

NGOs and institutions of higher learning can play a key role 

in helping build relationships that bridge traditional divides 

to create innovative water management solutions that also 

address national priorities, such as healthy communities and 

job creation. First, we recommend that NGOs and academic 

institutions evaluate how they are structured internally with 

respect to addressing freshwater challenges, with the goal of 

breaking down disciplinary silos. We also encourage identifying and establishing mechanisms for enhanced coordination 

of research and policy development eff orts, as well as interdisciplinary collaboration among organizations and institutions to advance freshwater solutions. Lastly, we recognize 

the important role the nongovernmental and academic 

sectors play in voicing support for the dedication of suffi cient human and fi nancial resources to address freshwater 

challenges, and strongly encourage them to play that role 

in helping to implement the recommendations contained in 

this Call to Action.

Communities Share Co-Benefi cial Solutions 

Healthy freshwater ecosystems are an essential underpinning 

of community parks, open spaces and gathering places, and 

the value they off er in this regard is best understood and 

prioritized at the local level. However, we must recognize 

that mechanisms for the protection of local water resources 

often originate at the federal or state level. We recommend 

that local communities draw on federal and state guidance 

and tools to plan for, manage and communicate about their 

water supply and quality needs, while designing strategies 

to achieve co-benefi cial outcomes that are adapted to the 

place. We encourage community leaders to explore innovative, decentralized water quality and quantity solutions that 

can be implemented at the neighborhood, site and individual 

building scale. Communities should also proactively seek 

and share existing models and tools that will help advance 

co-benefi cial solutions to locally specifi c freshwater needs 

and challenges. In the future, we envision that models and 

success stories of integrated, co-benefi cial solutions will be 

easily accessible via the type of database recommended in 

this Call to Action. 

Local Knowledge Can Inform 

Innovative Solutions

The firsthand experience of local people working on 

the ground daily to address freshwater challenges offers a valuable resource that can be tapped for innovative solutions. Whether it is scientists and agricultural 

leaders collaborating through the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program in 

Wyoming’s Little Snake River watershed to sustain 

wildlife and natural resource needs alongside compatible agricultural uses and recreational opportunities;29 or architects and builders working with public 

officials and private investors in New York City to 

design and install on-site water re-use and stormwater 

treatment technologies for a residential high-rise;30

people with hands-on experience can offer valuable 

insights and be helpful partners to policy makers in 

all sectors. Solutions to our freshwater challenges will 

have a greater chance of success if they are rooted in 

local knowledge and American ingenuity.

Recommendations
19 Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address U.S. Freshwater Challenges

Enhance Effectiveness 

of Existing Regulatory Tools 

for Freshwater Management

Challenges and Rationale

During the late 1960s and early 1970s, when many of our 

regulatory water quality frameworks were established, the 

health of many of our freshwater resources had reached crisis 

levels. The tools developed at that time eff ectively addressed 

many of those acute challenges, and prescriptive standards 

were developed predominately to address point-sources of 

pollution. In 2010, the emerging and increasingly complex 

freshwater challenges we face are pushing the boundaries 

of the original frameworks. The lack of eff ective alternatives 

results in existing regulatory tools being used in some cases 

to address freshwater problems to which they were not 

intended to be applied. The limitations of existing regulatory, 

enforcement and decision-making mechanisms often do not 

aff ord stakeholders an opportunity to seek constructive, cobenefi cial solutions. Improving existing regulatory tools, 

along with development of appropriate market-based and 

voluntary approaches, promises to generate broader engagement across sectors in solution implementation. In short, we 

need 21st century tools to address our 21st century freshwater problems. 

In parallel with the implementation of a commission to 

explore ways to enhance coordination and streamlining of 

freshwater governance, we recommend that the near-term 

steps outlined below be taken to enhance the eff ectiveness 

of existing regulatory tools in addressing the freshwater 

challenges facing the nation. Participants in The Freshwater 

Summit may have diff erent views on how to approach the 

opportunities outlined below, but we collectively recognize 

them as ripe opportunities nonetheless. 
20

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Make Near-Term Improvements to Key 

Freshwater Policies

We recommend that federal agency leaders within the EPA 

identify near-term opportunities for improving implementation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and related policies, and 

base proposed improvements on sound science and data. 

Building on the basic tenets of the CWA, the EPA should 

promote and encourage the formation of integrated watershed-based management strategies and partnerships. We 

recommend that the Agency seek opportunities to expand 

the application of successful cross-jurisdictional governance 

models (e.g., river basin commissions) that can be adapted to 

diff erent authorities, create opportunities for local-level leadership and innovation, improve planning and monitoring, 

and establish inter-jurisdictional dispute resolution mechanisms. In light of current understanding about the important 

linkages between surface water, groundwater and drinking 

water sources, we also recommend that the EPA explore the 

relationship between the CWA and the Safe Drinking Water 

Act and identify opportunities to achieve greater operational 

effi ciency between these two critical freshwater laws.

We recommend that the EPA increase fi nancial and technical 

assistance to states to build capacity for improving the eff ectiveness of CWA implementation at the state level. Assistance 

should include provision of necessary assistance to states to 

facilitate understanding of numeric nutrient criteria for water 

quality. The Agency should also identify and disseminate 

best practices for reducing nutrient loading and addressing 

emerging contaminants, while working to remove barriers 

to rapid and widespread adoption so that best practices 

become common practice. In particular, collaborative and 

science-based eff orts to address nonpoint sources of these 

pollutants should be emphasized. The EPA needs to also 

create the right conditions for the testing and evaluation of 

new pollution control technologies and strategies in order 

to accelerate innovation and reduce fi nancial, environmental 

and other risks to investors and communities. 

We also recommend that the EPA update CWA-related regulations that oversee stormwater fl ows by adopting recommendations provided by the National Research Council (NRC) 

in their 2009 report, Urban Stormwater Management in the 

United States, that are consistent with this Call to Action.

32

For example, the EPA could develop guidelines about how 

to design and calculate site-based impervious area fees 

to facilitate broader implementation of this cutting-edge 

approach, which is already driving innovative stormwater 

solutions in cities like Philadelphia and Washington, DC. The 

NRC’s recommendations are particularly useful because they 

Task Force Creates Cohesion 

Among Stakeholders

The Great Lakes hold 84 percent of North America’s 

surface freshwater, according to the EPA. Within the 

United States, 11 federal agencies, eight U.S. states, 40 

tribal nations, several major metropolitan areas, and 

numerous county and local governments together 

govern the Great Lakes. In 2004 President Bush created the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force to provide strategic direction on federal Great Lakes policy, 

priorities and programs. The EPA, the lead agency, 

works with state governors and mayors to facilitate 

regional collaboration. Goals include cleaner water 

and sustainable fisheries.31 

Recommendations
21 Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address U.S. Freshwater Challenges

recognize the complexity involved in treating and regulating 

stormwater due to the variable nature of fl ows and spatial 

distribution of control points, as well as interrelated impacts 

on water quality, biological integrity and habitat function of 

receiving water bodies. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Seek Improvements 

to the Next Farm Bill and Improve Implementation 

of the 2008 Conservation Title

As the EPA does with the CWA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has opportunities to improve the eff ectiveness of programs and policies under the Food, Conservation, 

and Energy Act of 2008 (Farm Bill) in the near-term. We recommend that the USDA make adjustments to its rulemaking 

and implementation of the 2008 Farm Bill Conservation Title 

programs to increase their eff ectiveness in catalyzing environmental stewardship and watershed-scale environmental 

outcomes, and recognize eff orts these programs 

have taken in that direction.

We support the creation of the Mississippi River Basin Initiative (MRBI) and the movement to advance and incentivize 

water monitoring as a tool for measuring performance and 

informing the planning process. We encourage creation 

of more such mechanisms that: target conservation funds 

toward impaired watersheds and are science-based; involve 

diverse watershed stakeholders familiar with local watershed 

conditions; and model interagency and cross-jurisdictional 

collaboration in support of locally led watershed initiatives. 

Furthermore, we encourage the creation of mechanisms that: 

incentivize suites of successful nutrient reduction strategies 

through cost-sharing; provide cost-share to farmers and 

groups for conducting water monitoring and other procedures to measure environmental performance of conservation practices; and include targeting and environmental 

performance measurement in grant-making criteria. In 

addition to targeting disbursement of conservation resources 

toward impaired watersheds, we recommend that the USDA 

link stronger accountability mechanisms to conservation 

funding. Initiatives such as the Conservation Eff ects Assessment Program should be continued and expanded to ensure 

that practices and approaches supported by USDA funding 

achieve the environmental outcomes intended. 

As the next Farm Bill is being developed, the USDA should 

work with Congress to strengthen and improve its eff ectiveness in addressing freshwater conservation, in line with 

recommendations throughout this Call to Action. This should 

include expanded support for 2008 Farm Bill initiatives such 

as the Agricultural Water Enhancement Program and the 

Cooperative Conservation Partners Initiative that facilitated 

such targeting, collaboration and monitoring eff orts as the 

MRBI. Expanded support for the Conservation Innovation 

Grant program, which partners the USDA with leaders in 

academia and business to develop, pilot and disseminate innovative solutions to conservation challenges, should include 

increased emphasis on freshwater quality and usage challenges. Increased fi nancial and technical assistance should 

be provided to help farmers overcome prohibitive costs and 

other barriers that hinder the implementation of operational 

changes aimed at freshwater conservation. Additional funds 

should also be directed toward capacity building at the 

Source Water Protection Less Costly 

Over Long Term

Studies have shown that in the case of groundwater, protecting source water from contamination is 

on average 30 to 40 (and up to 200) times cheaper 

than dealing with the consequences of contaminated 

groundwater.33 For example, when water supply in 

Burlington, North Carolina, became contaminated 

with the agricultural pesticide atrazine, the city chose 

to pursue source water protection rather than treatment. The pollution was traced to its source, and the 

city provided farmers with subsidies to assist them 

in shifting to alternate pesticides and pest control 

practices. This cost the city around $30,000 total in lab 

analyses and subsidies to farmers, while treating for 

atrazine would have cost the city $108,000 annually.34 35 
22

watershed scale, including development of local leaders in 

collaborative conservation, so that more local people are 

equipped to spearhead the formation of multi-stakeholder 

conservation eff orts at the watershed scale, and strengthening of coordinating infrastructure to facilitate watershed 

planning, implementation and monitoring and evaluation 

needed to achieve environmental performance.

White House Council on Environmental Quality 

Complete Update of Principles and Guidelines 

for Federal Water Resources Projects

We acknowledge the ongoing interagency eff ort, led by 

the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

and Offi ce of Management and Budget, to modernize the 

Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for 

Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies 

(Principles and Guidelines). The current Principles and Guidelines for federal water resources projects were originally 

established in 1983, and the time has come to update them 

so that environmental factors are considered as thoroughly 

as economic factors.

Recommendations
23 Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address U.S. Freshwater Challenges

Promote Efficient, 

Environmentally Wise Water 

Management, Use and Delivery

Challenges and Rationale 

The nation’s leaders should launch a full-throttle eff ort to 

research, develop and demonstrate innovative and environmentally wise freshwater practices and technologies for 

effi cient water use, alternative water supply sources and 

advanced water treatment. Just as effi ciency is being heavily 

touted as a key tactic in the energy sector, effi cient water use 

and delivery should be promoted as the frontline tactic for 

conserving and extending existing water supplies. We also 

need to raise awareness about the inextricable link between 

water and energy. Estimates vary, but somewhere between 

10 and 20 percent of our nation’s energy supplies go to the 

treatment, movement and use of water. Conversely, vast 

amounts of freshwater are necessary for energy resource extraction and electricity generation. By integrating water and 

energy management and policy, the nation can simultaneously improve the effi ciency of use of both critical resources. 

A key concept that underlies effi cient and environmentally 

wise water management is “the right water for the right use.” 

Potable water is currently dispersed for many uses in this 

country that do not require it, such as certain industrial applications, watering lawns and washing cars, to name a few. 

Freshwater is a fi nite resource, and to meet growing demand, 

we need to develop policies that enable us to continue providing safe drinking water while also allowing and facilitating 

the use of nonpotable water in situations where it is available 

and safe to use for the intended purpose. Moreover, we need 

to develop accepted methods for practices such as water accounting (e.g., water footprinting) so that major water users 

in diff erent sectors are able to accurately track and minimize 

their impact on freshwater resources through smarter allocations and other mitigation measures. 
24

Businesses Implement and Report on Freshwater 

Best Practices 

We recommend that the business sector take a variety of 

steps to help put the nation on a path to sustainable and 

resilient freshwater systems. First, businesses should understand and report on their water inputs, outputs and activities, and seize opportunities to enhance mitigation of water 

quality and quantity impacts (e.g., water accounting). We also 

suggest that companies enhance understanding of water use 

effi ciency along supply chains to identify opportunities and 

take action to measurably improve effi ciencies. In addition, 

we recommend that businesses voluntarily share innovative 

and successful private-sector models for water conservation, effi ciency, re-use and stormwater management. We also 

strongly recommend that business leaders actively collaborate with government and other stakeholders to develop and 

promote sustainable freshwater solutions.

Agricultural Producers Collaborate with Other 

Sectors to Enhance Freshwater Management

Farmers and ranchers own and operate a signifi cant portion 

of the nation’s land and often hold senior water rights, which 

means that they have a deeply vested interest in a dependable and quality supply of freshwater. We recommend that 

leaders from government agencies and other sectors collaborate with agricultural producers to develop and implement 

on-farm water effi ciency and runoff and drainage management improvements. As noted in examples in this report, 

improving their operational effi ciency with conservation 

practices is an important factor agricultural producers can 

control to increase their profi tability, which results in them 

having a wealth of practical knowledge about successful onfarm improvements. Key ways farmers and ranchers can help 

their bottom line and maintain future production opportunities while improving watershed health include minimizing 

the loss of nutrients and soil, improving energy effi ciency, 

optimizing yield and optimizing the eff ectiveness of nutrient and pesticide application to reduce excess. If arranged 

as cost-sharing partnerships, or through other creative 

incentives, these cross-sector collaborations could also help 

producers defray the implementation costs of operational 

changes and create models that could be shared and scaled 

up across the nation.

Governments and Utilities Invest in Development 

and Implementation of Measures to Increase 

Effi cient Water Use

We recommend that governments and utilities ramp up 

investment in research and development of new and emerging practices and technologies that improve demand-side 

water effi ciency and reduce pollutant discharge. They should 

develop and promote pilot demonstration projects focused 

on monitoring and evaluating the eff ectiveness of innovative 

water effi ciency and re-use practices and technologies according to performance-based, triple-bottom-line criteria for 

success. Examples of promising areas for investment include 

smart water meters, high-effi ciency irrigation technologies 

and techniques, water effi ciency programs, such as the EPA’s 

WaterSense program, innovative distributed water supply 

and treatment systems, and direct water re-use. Rigorous 

performance-based evaluation of water effi ciency practices 

and technologies will help decision makers determine which 

are worthy for widespread deployment. 

Farmers Work with Water District 

to Improve Efficiency

Since 1996, the Panoche Water and Drainage District 

in California’s Central Valley has facilitated implementation of high-efficiency irrigation systems within 

the district’s boundaries by making low-interest 

loans available to farmers for the purchase of gated 

pipe, sprinkler, and drip irrigation systems. Partially 

funded through state grants and loans, the program 

has helped farmers invest approximately $5 million 

dollars in new irrigation systems, and 70 percent of 

the district’s cropland is now irrigated with highefficiency equipment.36

Recommendations
25 Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address U.S. Freshwater Challenges

To facilitate widespread adoption of successful water effi -

ciency measures, we also recommend that government agencies and utilities develop incentives modeled after successful 

household energy effi ciency programs. Along with incentives to act, clearer messaging is needed to raise awareness 

about the inextricable relationship between water effi ciency 

and energy effi ciency, which could help drive down water 

demand and therefore energy demand. 

Governments and Utilities Increase Effi ciency of 

Water Delivery and Implement Environmentally 

Wise Supply Enhancement Strategies

Demand for management improvements must be balanced 

with supply enhancement strategies to help provide the right 

mix of solutions for varying circumstances across the nation. 

Reused and recycled water are potentially eff ective means 

of expanding our supply and limiting the energy needed to 

treat and transport water. We recommend that local governments and utilities with authority over water supply management take action to reduce policy and public perception 

barriers to water recycling and re-use by educating the public 

about the purposes and safety of reused and recycled water. 

With U.S. cities losing approximately 20 percent of their 

water to leaks and suff ering 1.2 trillion gallons of wastewater spills each year, we recommend that governments and 

utilities prioritize the rehabilitation of existing water storage 

and distribution facilities.37 Rehabilitation measures should 

focus on maximizing delivery effi ciencies, upgrading old 

piping and distribution systems and re-regulating reservoirs 

to minimize operational waste. In cases where construction of new supply infrastructure such as a dam is deemed 

necessary based on an alternatives analysis, careful attention 

must be devoted to avoiding, minimizing and/or mitigating 

ecosystem or other impacts.

Along these lines, we recommend adopting federal policy 

that supports the evaluation of new water supply enhancement projects in watersheds with inadequate storage capacity. Development of such projects, along with opportunities 

to increase benefi cial use and provide operational fl exibility, 

must be weighed against the ability to avoid, minimize and 

mitigate potential ecosystem impacts. We suggest that such a 

policy ought to encourage state and local co-leadership with 

stakeholders in the area for the planning and implementation of such projects, and call for the consideration of new 

and emerging supply enhancement strategies in the design 

phase. Additional groundwater supplies should be developed with sensitivity to the safe-yield and recharge parameters of the particular aquifer, ecosystem impacts and energy 

required for pumping. Conjunctive management of surface 

and groundwater supplies should be encouraged, including 

development of groundwater recharge projects that can be 

employed to take advantage of times of high surface fl ow. 

We also recommend that government agencies, utilities and 

other relevant actors develop pilot demonstration projects to 

evaluate the eff ectiveness of emerging supply-side freshwater practices and technologies. New and promising supplyside improvements include ecosystem restoration and engi-
26

neered wetlands, enhanced fl ood management, improved 

technology to treat brine-impaired waters, stormwater 

recharge, direct and indirect water re-use and cutting-edge 

drinking water treatment and disinfection systems. Pilot projects will help decision makers determine which new supplyside approaches are worthy for broad-scale implementation.

All Sectors Help Develop a Skilled Workforce to 

Support Water Management, Use and Delivery

The nation will need a skilled workforce to carry out the construction, operation and maintenance for more effi cient and 

sustainable water management, use and delivery systems. We 

recommend that leaders from all sectors contribute to a comprehensive assessment of long-term workforce needs and job 

opportunity projections in the water industry. Based on the 

results of that assessment, we must develop the resources 

to fi ll identifi ed gaps in our workforce, including investment 

in training programs that will help develop the skills needed 

to support emerging water management practices, such as 

green infrastructure, water re-use technology and other innovative approaches. 

Developing a workforce with these skills will help create 

jobs and bolster community economies by providing livable 

wages and promoting healthy neighborhoods. Furthermore, 

these investments will promote healthy alternatives for 

young people joining the workforce. For example, strengthening and expanding the Civilian Conservation Corps and 

other vocational programs will create “green-collar” jobs for 

youths. Collaboration between governmental and nongovernmental leaders in communities across the nation will be 

critical to anticipate training needs, advocate for training 

resources and encourage hiring provisions that will ensure a 

diverse high-quality workforce is available to help achieve the 

vision outlined in this Call to Action. 

Recommendations

Photo by Eddee Daniel
27 Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address U.S. Freshwater Challenges

Challenges and Rationale

The selection of appropriate freshwater management, 

conservation, effi ciency and water supply enhancement 

strategies depends on good data. This is true in all sectors, yet 

fundamental data about our freshwater resources is incomplete, inconsistent, unreliable and unavailable in real time for 

informed decision making. With today’s remote sensing and 

satellite technology, powerful computers and high-speed 

internet connections, we should be able to collect even the 

most diffi cult-to-obtain data and share it in real time. There 

are a number of poorly understood freshwater issues for 

which we require more research and better data so that we 

can identify eff ective and durable solutions. These include 

the availability and use of surface and groundwater, concentration and health implications of emerging contaminants 

such as endocrine disruptors in our waters, climate change 

impacts on freshwater systems, and outdoor water consumption and residential water use. In the meantime, we must continue to act using the best-available science and adapt our 

management strategies as better information becomes available. Lack of funding for basic research and water monitoring 

is a key hurdle. We need to invest in freshwater research and 

data collection that informs decision makers at a level commensurate with the challenges we face. 

Federal Agencies and Congress Expand and Sustain 

Freshwater Research and Data Collection

We recommend that federal agencies, especially those within 

the U.S. Department of the Interior, expand existing nationwide freshwater quality and quantity monitoring and data 

Ensure Freshwater 

Decision Making Is Based 

on Sound Science and Data
28

collection networks and outfi t them with cutting-edge technology that enables rapid data analysis and real-time data 

sharing. The installation of additional stream gauges, water 

meters, groundwater monitoring wells and better estimates 

of consumptive use are of paramount importance for the effective management of available water supplies. 

Congress should ensure adequate and sustained funding for 

full implementation of key activities mandated in the SECURE 

Water Act of 2009, including the Water Availability and Use 

Assessment to be conducted as part of the U.S. Department 

of Interior’s WaterSMART Initiative and the National Water 

Census, as well as the U.S. Geological Survey’s National 

Streamfl ow Information Program and streamgaging network, 

and the creation of a National Groundwater Resources Monitoring Program and Brackish Groundwater Assessment. 

We recommend that all federal programs that fund water 

projects or research establish performance measures that 

require data-driven documentation of municipal, agricultural, 

environmental restoration and academic projects. Such performance measures will ensure freshwater data is collected 

from federally funded projects and investment in enhanced 

data is sustained over time. Lastly, we recommend that CEQ 

explore and identify opportunities for the National Academies to investigate and advance the nation’s understanding 

of particularly critical or vexing freshwater resource challenges, such as the relationship between water and energy 

and potential co-benefi cial solutions that will reduce demand 

for and use of both.

NGOs and Academic Institutions Help Develop 

Freshwater Monitoring and Data Collection Tools

We recommend that NGOs and academic research institutions research and develop metrics for measuring progress 

toward sustainable and resilient freshwater resources that 

encompass the triple-bottom-line indicators of ecosystem 

health, economic impact and social equity. NGOs and academic institutions should also collaborate with government 

agencies to ensure freshwater monitoring and data collection 

networks are functioning properly and collecting useful data. 

In addition, they should collaborate with business leaders to 

help develop an accepted methodology for water accounting 

and contribute to the advancement of our understanding of 

the water/energy nexus.

Businesses Share Freshwater Data and Innovative 

Water Management Practices 

A clearer understanding of the water inputs and outputs 

of diff erent commercial and industrial activities will enable 

better water management decision making in all sectors. We 

recommend that businesses and trade associations establish 

policies that encourage the voluntary sharing of data and information about innovative freshwater use and management 

practices that increase the water effi ciency or reduce overall 

water demand or water quality impacts of business operations. We also recommend that business leaders engage in 

and support eff orts to develop accepted methodologies 

for water accounting and reporting. In addition, we encourage utilities and other water technology fi rms to advance 

research and development of smart meter technology that 

tracks water use in real time and facilitates data collection 

and sharing with consumers and decision makers. 

Retail Coalition Funds Water 

Quality Monitoring

Agriculture’s Clean Water Alliance (ACWA) is a 

membership organization comprised of agricultural 

retailers that apply a portion of their dues to water 

quality monitoring on agricultural lands in Iowa’s Des 

Moines Lobe. Founded in 1999 to address nitrates 

in Iowa’s Raccoon River, ACWA has partnered with 

downstream utility Des Moines Water Works, the 

Iowa Soybean Association, and, more recently, the 

Nature Conservancy in Iowa to conduct three-tier 

water monitoring (138 sites) to understand the land/

water interface and seek performing solutions. Since 

2004, ACWA has devoted more than $1 million to 

water quality data collection and a tile drainage denitrifying bioreactor demonstration project.38

Recommendations
29 Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address U.S. Freshwater Challenges

Challenges and Rationale

The context-specifi c nature of freshwater management 

decisions and shifting hydrological patterns create challenges that cut across sectors and industries. Watershed 

hydrology is extremely complex, and the dynamics within 

every watershed are diff erent. In addition, many of the most 

serious impacts of climate change will manifest as changes 

in the hydrologic cycle. As the eff ects of climate change alter 

familiar patterns of evapotranspiration, rainfall, snowmelt 

and in-stream fl ows, trend projections and fi xed water management regimes based on the historical record will become 

increasingly ineff ective. To ensure sustainable and resilient 

freshwater resources and systems for the future, we must 

implement risk-based approaches that anticipate the range 

of potential change and employ fl exible and adaptive management strategies that allow decision makers to integrate 

new knowledge and respond to disruptions or risks as they 

materialize over time. 

Businesses Increase Resilience to Uncertain 

and Variable Freshwater Supplies

We recommend that businesses develop a better understanding of the impact on their supply chains from increasing vulnerability to extreme weather events and long-term 

change in water supply. We also recommend that businesses 

closely monitor freshwater inputs, outputs and activities (i.e., 

water accounting) and establish mechanisms to allow for 

the adjustment of operations to adapt to shifting freshwater 

resource conditions. 

Agricultural Producers Implement Adaptive 

Management Strategies

Adaptive management at the farm and local watershed scale 

is considered a key strategy for sustaining agricultural production and improving water quality. The deliberate and 

Employ a Long-Range Adaptive 

Approach to Freshwater Resources 

Planning and Management
30

iterative annual process of planning, implementing, evaluating and adjusting management strategies for crop and 

livestock production is an important pathway to optimized 

production and natural resource conservation in the agricultural sector. These strategies will become increasingly 

important as the impacts of variable climate on the already 

complex and variable land/water interface are felt by agriculture. For example, water demand for agriculture, primarily 

irrigation, will increase in some regions due to higher temperatures, prolonged dry periods and severe drought. There will 

be less water stored in snowpack and more water in the form 

of rainfall in some regions, so runoff will come at farmers and 

ranchers sooner in the season when it may not be useful and 

may even present a threat. Water demand for the hydration 

of farm animals will also increase in areas with rising temperatures. To respond to existing complexities and the spatial 

and temporal variability of the land/water interface, and to 

prepare for added climatic variability and uncertain impacts, 

we recommend that farmers and ranchers across the nation 

implement an adaptive management approach in their operations, building on best practices and success stories from 

diff erent parts of the country. 

Utilities Increase Resilience to Uncertain 

and Variable Freshwater Supplies 

We recommend that water and energy utilities develop more 

adaptive and conservative approaches to long-term planning and freshwater management to account for increased 

uncertainty and potential variability of water supplies over 

time due to the eff ects of climate change. For example, water 

utilities should consider maintaining natural fl ow regimes as 

an alternative for assisting ecosystem and species adaptation 

to climate change.

Furthermore, we recommend that utilities work with government planners and other stakeholders to ensure that future 

energy supplies are both low-carbon and low-water, particularly in regions of current and projected water stress. New 

water and energy infrastructure should be engineered so that 

it is adaptable to climate change impacts while not inhibiting 

ecosystem adaptability. 

Government Agencies Adopt Adaptive Freshwater 

Management Policies that Promote Resilience

We recommend that federal, state and local government 

water management agencies review relevant policies and 

regulations to identify whether changes can be made to allow managers on the ground the fl exibility to adapt management actions to respond to changing hydrologic conditions. 

State and federal water management agencies should also 

undertake water monitoring to detect emerging trends in 

water quality, quantity and timing of fl ow regimes and hydroperiods to inform rapid response and adaptation decisions at 

the local level. In addition, agencies should actively develop 

policies to reduce risks associated with more frequent and extreme weather events, including drought management plans, 

plans for displacement and management of water quality 

problems due to fl ooding, and water allocation schemes that 

are fl exible in the event of unexpected extremes. 

Communities Increase Resilience to Local 

Hydrologic Changes 

We recommend that local government offi cials and community leaders develop a thorough understanding of the 

potential eff ects of climate change on their watersheds, as 

well as viable strategies for adapting local land use and water 

resource planning to increase community resilience to signifi cant hydrologic changes. Planning areas that community 

leaders should consider evaluating and adjusting in light of 

potential climate change impacts include fl oodplain delineation, and securing and sustainably managing water supplies.

Decreasing Snowpack in The West

In western states, water managers have traditionally

relied on snowpack in mountain ranges to melt 

throughout the spring and summer and supply water. 

But a 2005 study showed that snow runoff in the Colorado River decreased 2 percent during the 20th century, and predicted a 10 percent reduction by 2050.39 

Recommendations
31 Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address U.S. Freshwater Challenges

Challenges and Rationale

Most people in this country do not know how much it actually costs to obtain, treat and deliver their water and wastewater. This lack of awareness underlies a general sense of 

entitlement and unwillingness to pay higher costs for water 

services or support local utilities’ eff orts to upgrade aging 

water infrastructure despite its integral role in supporting 

healthy and livable communities. Poor public understanding 

about the full cost of water services persists in part because 

water and wastewater utilities lack adequate mechanisms to 

track the full cost of their own services. We must understand 

and be able to account for the full cost of water services 

delivered by these utilities and structure water pricing in 

ways that encourage conservation before we can alter public 

perception that water should remain inexpensive.

Upgrading aging infrastructure or replacing it with better 

management alternatives could increase the ability of communities and watersheds to adapt to and cope with current 

demand as well as changing climatic conditions. Yet, we are 

facing an investment gap of more than $540 billion by 2019 

for infrastructure upgrades to ensure safe drinking water 

and wastewater treatment.40 The brunt of these costs falls 

on municipalities, many of which simply cannot aff ord to 

repair or rebuild failing water infrastructure. This is because 

most water customers do not pay enough to cover the costs 

of the services they are provided, which causes shortfalls for 

water utilities that make upgrades cost prohibitive. Together 

we must highlight the importance of properly functioning 

water systems and spur much-needed investment to repair, 

rebuild and expand the nation’s structural and nonstructural 

freshwater infrastructure. 

Account for the Full Cost 

of Water, and Invest in 

Sustainable Water Infrastructure
32

Water Utilities Collaborate with Other Sectors to 

Develop Full Cost-of-Service Accounting 

We recommend that all water suppliers aim to account for 

their complete operating costs so that they have accurate 

data about the cost of municipal drinking water, stormwater 

and wastewater services and can communicate it to customers. In the near-term, we recommend that water and 

wastewater utilities draw on the asset management model to 

develop full cost-of-service accounting methodologies and 

systems that enable utility managers to incorporate capital replacement costs and federal subsidization into water 

service rates in the near term. Utilities should seek input and 

advice from NGOs, academics and business leaders in this 

eff ort to ensure the methodologies and systems are valid and 

viable in the marketplace. In the longer term, we see a need 

for the development of methodology to incorporate external 

costs of water treatment and delivery, namely ecosystem 

impacts, into full-cost accounting schemes. 

Full cost-of-service accounting will allow for the evaluation and 

establishment of new pricing signals that can better refl ect 

the true costs of water and/or facilitate application of market 

mechanisms for driving conservation and innovation. Fullcost pricing is one of several market signals that can be used 

to incentivize conservation and effi ciency behaviors among 

consumers and help reduce peak demand. Regardless of the 

particular market signals that are used, they will be more effective if implemented within an accounting structure where 

consumers have a clear understanding of the full cost of service. As utilities shift toward recovering the full costs of water 

and wastewater services, we strongly urge them to institute 

appropriate mechanisms to ensure the aff ordability of water 

among low-income or disadvantaged populations, and that 

water prices do not become cost-prohibitive for industrial and 

commercial activities essential to the nation’s economy. 

Utility Changes Rate Structure, 

Conserves Water

Some water utilities are decoupling revenue from 

quantity of water sold. In 1991, Irvine Ranch Water 

District in Orange County, California, instituted an 

allocation-based rate structure in which households 

pay a base price for a set allocation. Those who 

exceed the allocation are penalized with rates up to 

eight times higher than the base, while those within 

the allocation receive a discounted rate. The result is 

low usage and low rates. To meet its revenue needs 

the utility separated fixed and volumetric charges 

and distributed operating costs across all customers. 

It also separated out capital costs, which are covered 

through property taxes and connection fees.41

Recommendations
33 Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address U.S. Freshwater Challenges

Water Utilities Decouple Revenues from 

Volume of Service 

Water utilities servicing municipalities typically recoup fi xed 

costs based on volume of water sold. The more water sold, 

the greater the net revenue. As a result, there is an institutional disincentive for utilities to promote water conservation. Decoupling water utility costs so that fi xed costs are 

fully recouped, but are not spread across a declining base of 

sales, would motivate utilities to proactively and aggressively 

promote water conservation and effi ciency among their 

customers. Decoupling would allow utilities the fl exibility to 

fully cover costs while also rewarding customers for conservation rather than raising rates to compensate for decreased 

revenues resulting from conservation. We recommend that 

water utilities work with municipalities, and their respective public service commissioners and customers, to adapt 

existing models for decoupling revenues to the water and 

wastewater sectors such that they can develop water pricing 

schemes that promote conservation. In the near term, while 

more sophisticated accounting and pricing mechanisms 

are under development, we recommend that water utilities 

consider existing models for incentivizing advantageous 

consumer behavior, such as seasonal block rates employed 

by cities such as Los Angeles, Seattle, Salt Lake City, Santa Fe 

and San Antonio, where the price of water increases for each 

unit used during dry months. 

Public Agencies, Utilities and Private 

Investors Collaborate to Expand Infrastructure 

Investment Options

Action is needed to expand the range of investment options 

available to meet immediate and long-term infrastructure upgrades. We recommend a combination of conventional and 

market-based approaches in the near term to fi ll the gap in 

available fi nancing, with the goal of transitioning to predominantly market-based approaches over the long term. Full 

cost-of-service water pricing is a critical step to increase the 

fi nancial capacity of utilities and municipalities to maintain 

and develop infrastructure, but additional options must be 

developed in parallel for this eff ort to be successful. 

First, we recommend repairing or upgrading existing infrastructure where possible, to maximize re-use of resources 

and minimize new construction costs. When evaluating the 

costs of repairs or upgrades, decision makers should assess 

whether fi xing existing infrastructure will reduce costs and 

increase system effi ciency over the long term. We recommend that urban and rural municipalities proactively seek 

to establish appropriate partnerships to create innovative fi nancing alternatives for assessing and meeting their 

infrastructure needs. Projects should be prioritized for capital 

investment according to where water infrastructure is most 

inadequate or presents the greatest threat to public health, 

or the potential for maximizing effi ciency is the greatest, including in low-income communities where economic factors 

limit the viability of conservation eff orts. In addition, assessments of water storage and distribution infrastructure should 

be conducted with an eye toward changes in the hydrologic 

cycle likely linked to climate change, particularly in the West. 

In cases where urban or rural water infrastructure systems are 

in need of major upgrades or completely new systems are 

necessary to serve developing areas, structural and nonstructural systems should be designed in a context-sensitive and 

environmentally responsible manner. 

Partnership Employs Soft Path Strategies

The Christina Basin Clean Water Partnership is 

an alliance of federal, state, local and nonprofit 

watershed organizations in Delaware and Pennsylvania. Since 1994 they have worked to restore the 

historically industrial, 565-square-mile watershed 

to potable, fishable and swimmable status.42 43

Although it relies on voluntary action, the partnership has successfully implemented a variety of soft 

path strategies, including working with local farms 

to reforest riparian zones along streams, restoring 

stormwater wetlands, and encouraging residents to 

use rain barrels and native plants in landscaping. 

In 2003 the partnership received a $1 million grant 

from the EPA, which ranked it first among the 176 

watershed groups considered.44 45
34

As we transition to market-based systems for fi nancing the 

full cost of water services, we also have to consider the immediate investment needed to address aging and inadequate 

infrastructure systems. The existing gap in capital exceeds the 

capacity of any single solution. State revolving fund programs, water banks and dedicated trusts have been explored 

as fl exible fi nancing options to help municipalities with 

low-interest loans, extended loan terms, grants and other programs to spread out or relieve the costs. The EPA’s Clean Water 

State Revolving Fund Program and Safe Drinking Water State 

Revolving Fund Program are two existing fi nancing options 

for municipalities. State revolving funds (SRFs) have a longterm track record of off ering loans with fl exible terms and at 

low interest rates, as well as opportunities for partnerships 

with other funders. Historically, SRFs have had extremely low 

default rates and high impact on a project basis, but their 

impact on water quality nationally has not been optimized 

due to underfunding and a lack of creativity. We recommend 

that the implementation of the Clean Water and Safe Drinking 

Water SRFs be improved, the application process streamlined 

and awards targeted toward projects that align with the principles and recommendations in this Call to Action. 

Sustainable water infrastructure depends on more than just 

funding and well-engineered systems. Research in the United States has shown that eff ective staffi ng, consistent public 

support for suffi cient funding, better asset management 

systems, performance measurements and rewards, and more 

stakeholder involvement and transparency are critical to 

eff ective water infrastructure management. In cases where 

increased private involvement or changes in public operations created signifi cant cost savings, it is typically because 

specifi c improvements were identifi ed and implemented in 

one or more of these areas. We recommend that municipalities strive to optimize triple-bottom-line outcomes by balancing investment in hard infrastructure with investment in 

these important human capital aspects of sustainable water 

infrastructure. Communities should establish partnerships 

with academic, vocational, NGO and business programs 

to harness the full benefi t of the workforce opportunity 

represented by water infrastructure investments. This type 

of strategy has the potential to generate socio-economic 

co-benefi ts by creating job opportunities in maintenance, 

operation and facility support for local workers, youth, and 

small and disadvantaged businesses. 

Recommendations
35 Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address U.S. Freshwater Challenges

Challenges and Rationale

Ultimately, many freshwater solutions will be ineff ective if 

they are not refl ected in the attitudes and everyday choices 

of Americans. For example, a 2009 Gallup survey indicated 

that drinking water pollution was the top environmental concern among the public, yet water customers typically cry out 

against even minimal rate increases needed for investment in 

new water projects.46 At the heart of this challenge is a lack of 

awareness about where water comes from, where wastewater discharges go and the signifi cant planning and investment that goes into maintaining the quality and volume of 

fl ow. To address this challenge, we must make information 

about freshwater resources publicly available and easily accessible, and ensure that water-related public participation 

processes are inclusive, fair and transparent. It is time we 

make freshwater a public education priority, raise awareness 

and change constituents’ behavior on a broad scale, as we did 

with litter in the 1970s and seat belts in the 1980s. 

Water Utilities Inform Customers about 

Freshwater Challenges and Solutions 

We recommend that water utilities build on successful 

examples of using residential water bills as a public education vehicle to provide useful, motivational information to 

customers. Key topics to cover include water use, water pricing and the links between water and energy. At a minimum, 

every water and wastewater customer should be individually 

metered, and monthly bills should show comparison data 

against the average usage, previous year usage and neighbors’ use. As water and wastewater utilities shift toward full 

cost-of-service pricing, we recommend they utilize bills and 

customer mailings to explain the need for and methods for 

setting full cost-of-service rates. Utilities should also leverage 

growing consumer awareness of the cost-saving and carbon 

emission reduction benefi ts of energy effi ciency to help 

elevate water conservation and effi ciency as another highpriority national goal. 

Educate the Public About 

Freshwater Challenges 

and Solutions
36

Municipal Governments and Community 

Organizations Develop Freshwater-Oriented 

Public Messaging 

We strongly recommend that municipal governments and 

community-based organizations develop place-based messaging that focuses public attention on water effi ciency and 

conservation. To ensure sustainable and resilient freshwater resources for future generations of Americans, today’s 

constituents must recognize the value of investing in safe, 

reliable and effi cient water infrastructure for their communities – whether they are urban or rural. They must see the 

potential long-term benefi ts of implementing innovative 

freshwater management policies, such as basing stormwater 

rates on impervious surface area. Most importantly, they 

must understand how their own behavior impacts freshwater 

resources and what they can do to minimize their personal 

water footprint. Local governments and community organizations should draw from case examples such as the Los 

Angeles River, where public education programs are in place 

to introduce the public, including low-income communities, 

to the benefi ts of conservation and sustainable freshwater 

management practices.

National NGOs Launch a Widespread Education 

Campaign about Freshwater Resources

We recommend that leaders in the NGO community initiate a national campaign to educate the public about where 

their water comes from, what the embedded delivery costs 

are and how they can protect and conserve this valuable resource. We need to disseminate understandable information 

about the freshwater challenges we face and help individuals 

understand how those challenges are connected to the dayto-day choices we make.

Investment in Drinking Water 

Systems Lagging

Bottled water sales in the United States reached 8.82 

billion gallons in 2007, worth $11.7 billion, making 

the U.S. market for bottled water the largest in the 

world.47 Over 20 years, Americans will likely spend 

$234 billion on bottled water. Also in 2007, EPA 

calculated that we need to invest $334.8 billion over 

20 years in drinking water infrastructure.48

Recommendations
37 Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address U.S. Freshwater Challenges

Challenges and Rationale

Ecosystem services are the tangible and intangible benefi ts 

that our rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands produce and 

provide for human beings. These freshwater systems provide 

food, water delivery mechanisms, water purifi cation, waste 

disposal, carbon sequestration and recreation to name a few 

such services. It is intuitively obvious that these services have 

value, and that their loss due to degradation and destruction 

of freshwater ecosystems represents a cost. The challenge 

we face is in understanding more fully the services these 

freshwater ecosystems provide and how to assess the value 

of those services. We also lack the institutional mechanisms 

to account for and internalize the full costs of activities that 

impact freshwater ecosystems.

Leaders from All Sectors Collaborate to Build 

Understanding and Tools to Support Freshwater 

Ecosystem Markets

We recommend that government, the private sector, NGOs, 

landowners and academics collaborate to create the tools 

and methodologies needed to develop a better understanding of freshwater ecosystem valuation and, where appropriate, ecosystem services markets. This foundational knowledge will support the eff ort to design eff ective governance 

structures to manage, monitor and provide decision support 

systems for institutionalizing the economic and social values 

of freshwater ecosystem services. These systems should take 

into consideration the water supply, distribution and water 

quality improvement values off ered by natural systems. 

They also should be designed to encourage multiple water 

resources benefi ts (e.g., a single investment in riparian buffers could support water quality, ground water recharge and 

habitat protection). The market-based systems should not be 

Develop and Validate 

Methods for Freshwater 

Ecosystem Services Markets
38

punitive nor penalizing. As we develop and refi ne methods to 

locate, quantify and assign value to the ecosystem benefi ts of 

freshwater conservation actions, the prospect of establishing 

payments and stable markets for water-related ecosystem 

services will become ever more attainable. 

While freshwater ecosystem services markets promise to 

generate environmental benefi ts, the potential social and 

economic impacts must also be assessed. We recommend 

that NGOs and academic research institutions evaluate the 

social and economic impacts of existing market-based natural resource conservation approaches to determine how to 

ensure that the environmental, social and economic impacts 

of existing and emerging markets and payment schemes are 

fair and equitable, and that they include eff ective confl ict 

resolution and negotiation mechanisms. For these market 

mechanisms to be successful, they will require trusted governance structures, which will also benefi t from a collaborative 

design approach.

USDA Facilitate the Development of Freshwater 

Ecosystem Services Markets 

Section 2709 of the 2008 Farm Bill charges the USDA with 

facilitating the participation of farmers, ranchers and forest 

landowners in emerging environmental services markets, and 

calls for the agency to develop metrics and market infrastructure to incorporate these markets into federal programs. The 

Farm Bill also directs the agency to build on existing activities 

and information, and consult with state and federal agencies 

and other relevant stakeholders to develop environmental or 

ecosystem services markets. We support the USDA’s eff orts 

to advance the development of ecosystem services markets 

and encourage the agency to draw lessons from existing and 

emerging market and payment schemes (e.g., water quality 

trading, carbon off set programs and species banking). We 

recognize that market development eff orts are underway in 

the Chesapeake Bay, the Mississippi and Ohio River Basins 

and a number Farm of the Future project sites. Furthermore, 

we recommend that the USDA review relevant federal and 

state legal and regulatory frameworks to ensure they support 

fair and eff ective freshwater ecosystem service markets and 

payments. The Department should work with landowners 

to clarify property, management and use rights for freshwater services and areas of land that may be managed 

to provide those services. We also suggest that the USDA 

collaborate with experts from other sectors to pilot bundled 

or layered ecosystem service markets to evaluate whether 

they can reduce transaction costs while achieving multiple 

service benefi ts. 

Assigning Value to Ecosystem Services 

Healthy ecosystems perform multiple critical 

services for humans that have an economic value. 

These include providing drinkable water, breathable 

air, food, a stable climate, biodiversity to inspire 

medications, physical buffers against storms and 

flooding and space for recreation and tourism. Ecosystems also recycle waste and pollinate food crops.

One way to understand how much an ecosystem 

service is worth, is for economists to calculate how 

much it would cost to restore the natural system or 

to build a mechanical system to perform the same 

service. Worldwide, markets exist for carbon, 

biodiversity, wetlands and water quality. 

Recommendations
IMAGE

Commitments 

to Action
Commitments to Action 40

As the issuers of this Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to 

Address U.S. Freshwater Challenges, we consider it important to 

demonstrate our own commitment to advancing the vision and 

recommendations presented herein. At The Johnson Foundation 

Freshwater Summit on June 9, 2010, each of us committed our 

respective organizations to specific actions to lead the nation 

toward a future of sustainable and resilient freshwater resources. 

The full list of commitments that we have made is available as a 

printed addendum to the Call to Action and can also be accessed 

on the Web at www.johnsonfdn.org/chartingnewwaters. We 

strongly encourage other leaders across the United States to join 

us in making achievable commitments to concerted action for the 

nation’s freshwater resources. 
41 Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address U.S. Freshwater Challenges

Contributors

Summit Participants

The following individuals participated in The Johnson 

Foundation Freshwater Summit on June 9, 2010 and are the 

issuers of Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address 

U.S. Freshwater Challenges. 

*The federal agency participants in The Freshwater Summit

took part to help inform the deliberations. The fi ndings and 

recommendations in this Call to Action are being delivered by 

the non-federal participants for the consideration of leaders 

and senior decision makers in all sectors of American society.

†These individuals participated in The Freshwater Summit, but 

cannot formally endorse the Call to Action due to the policies 

of their respective organizations.

Frank H. Akers, Jr.

External Chair

Science Advisory Council

Mars, Incorporated

Deanna Archuleta*

Deputy Assistant Secretary

Water and Science

United States Department of Interior

Ann Bartuska*

Acting Under Secretary for Research, 

Education and Economics

United States Department of Agriculture

Chuck Clarke

Chief Executive Offi cer

Cascade Water Alliance

Edward A. Clerico

Chief Executive Offi cer

Alliance Environmental, LLC

Elaine Dorward-King

Global Head of Health, Safety and Environment

Rio Tinto

Roger C. Dower

President

The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread

Cecilia V. Estolano

Chief Strategist for State and Local Initiatives

Green for All

Andrew Fellows

Mayor

City of College Park, Maryland

Richard D. Fox

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Offi cer

CDM

Paul Freedman

President

Water Environment Federation

Ray Gaesser

Past President

Iowa Soybean Association

Robert García

Executive Director and Counsel

The City Project

Peter Gleick

President and Co-Founder

Pacifi c Institute

Charles R. Gordon

President and Chief Executive Offi cer

Siemens Water Technologies

S. Curtis Johnson

Chairman

Diversey, Inc.
Contributors 42

Helen P. Johnson-Leipold

Chairman of the Board

The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread

Kevin Knobloch

President

The Union of Concerned Scientists

David Kohler

President and Chief Operating Offi cer

Kohler Co.

J. Michael McGinnis†

Senior Scholar

Institute of Medicine of The National Academies

Patrick O’Toole

President of the Board

Family Farm Alliance

President

Ladder Livestock

Carter S. Roberts

President and Chief Executive Offi cer

World Wildlife Fund

William D. Ruckelshaus

Chair

Puget Sound Partnership Leadership Council

Former Administrator

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Jeff ry Sterba

Chairman of the Board

PNM Resources

Nancy Stoner*

Deputy Assistant Administrator

Offi ce of Water

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Nancy Sutley*

Chair

White House Council on Environmental Quality

Rebecca Wodder

President

American Rivers

Kate Wolford†

President

McKnight Foundation
43 Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address U.S. Freshwater Challenges

Other Contributors

The following organizations participated in The Johnson 

Foundation Freshwater Forum deliberations and contributed 

invaluable information, perspective and insight on 

the myriad freshwater issues facing the nation. Their 

contributions helped make this Call to Action possible. 

Academia/Research Institutions 

Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin/Medical College of Wisconsin

Colorado State University, Colorado Water Institute

Electric Power Research Institute

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

The Institute for Public Health and Water Research

Institute of Medicine of the National Academies

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 

 Sloan School of Management

Michigan State University, Department of Agriculture, 

 Food and Resource Economics

Michigan State University, Fisheries and Wildlife

Marshfi eld Clinic Research Foundation

Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, 

 Duke University

University of California, Berkeley, Center for Law, 

 Energy and the Environment

University of California, Berkeley, 

 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

University of California, Santa Barbara, 

 Bren School of Environmental Science and Management

University of Colorado, CU-NOAA Western Water Assessment

University of Georgia, Odum School of Ecology

University of Maryland School of Nursing

University of New England

University of Texas, Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Wisconsin-Madison, Center for Limnology

University of Wisconsin-Madison, Center for Sustainability 

 and the Global Environment

University of Wyoming, 

 Department of Zoology and Physiology

Business/Industry 

Alliance Environmental, LLC

Arizona Public Service Company

The Cadmus Group, Inc.

CDM

CH2M Hill

The Coca-Cola Company, Strategic Global Water 

 and Environmental Initiatives

Conservation Strategy, LLC

Davidoff Communications

Diversey, Inc.

DuPont Crop Production Products

The Fertilizer Institute

Iowa Soybean Association

John Deere Water Technologies

Johnson Outdoors

Kohler Co.

LimnoTech, Inc.

Mars, Incorporated

Mithun

National Corn Growers Association

PNM Resources

Quarles & Brady LLP

Rio Tinto

S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.

Siemens Water Technologies

Watermark Initiative, LLC

Government

California Energy Commission

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

 National Center for Environmental Health
Contributors 44

City of College Park, Maryland

City of Milwaukee, Department of Public Works

City of Philadelphia, Offi ce of Watersheds:

 National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences

New York City Department of Environmental Protection, 

 Bureau of Water Supply

San Antonio Water System, Conservation Department

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 

 Water Quality Division

Tampa Bay Water

United States Army Corps of Engineers

United States Department of Agriculture

United States Department of Energy

United States Department of the Interior 

United States Environmental Protection Agency

White House Council on Environmental Quality

Non-Governmental Organizations

Alliance for Water Effi ciency

American Farmland Trust

American Rivers

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

Center for Resilient Cities

CERES

Charles River Watershed Association

The City Project

Clean Air-Cool Planet

Clean Water Action

Clean Water for North Carolina

Ducks Unlimited

Environmental Defense Fund

Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative

The Environmental Working Group

Family Farm Alliance

Future 500 Group

Green for All

National Heritage Institute

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

National Wildlife Federation

The Nature Conservancy

Natural Resources Defense Council

Pacifi c Institute

River Network

Union of Concerned Scientists

Water Environment Federation

Water Environment Research Foundation

WateReuse Foundation

Water Stewardship, Inc.

Waterkeeper® Alliance

West Atlanta Watershed Alliance

World Wildlife Fund

Foundations

The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread

The Joyce Foundation

The Kresge Foundation

McKnight Foundation

Walton Family Foundation

The Johnson Foundation Staff

Lynn Broaddus, Director, Environment Programs

Wendy Butler, Special Initiatives Coordinator

Cynthia Georgeson, Communications Consultant

Meridian Institute Facilitators

John Ehrmann, Senior Partner

Molly Mayo, Senior Mediator

Brad Spangler, Mediator
45 Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address U.S. Freshwater Challenges

Endnotes

1. Shaila Dewan, “River Basin Fight Pits Atlanta Against Neighbors,” New York Times, August 15, 2009, http://

www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/us/16water.html. 

2. Phaedra S. Corso, et al., “Cost of Illness in the 1993 Waterborne Cryptosporidium Outbreak, Milwaukee, Wisconsin,” Emerging Infectious Diseases 9, no. 4 (April 2003), http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/

vol9no4/02-0417.htm. 

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Aging Water Infrastructure Research: Water Distribution 

Systems,” EPA website, http://www.epa.gov/awi/distributionsys.html.

4. Katherine Shaver, “As Inspections Dwindled, Water Main Breaks Rose,” The Washington Post, May 7, 2009, 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/06/AR2009050604214.html. 

5. EPA, “Aging Water Infrastructure Research.” 

6. Suzanne Goldenberg, “‘Toxic Stew’ of Chemicals Causing Male Fish to Carry Eggs in Testes,” The Guardian, 

April 21, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/21/toxic-stew-chemicals-fi sh-eggs. 

7. Lawrence L. Master, Stephanie R. Flack, and Bruce A. Stein, eds., Rivers of Life: Critical Watersheds for 

Protecting Freshwater Biodiversity (Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy, 1998), 1.

8. Jane Braxton Little, “The Ogallala Aquifer: Saving a Vital U.S. Water Source,” Scientifi c American (March 

2009), http://www.scientifi camerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-ogallala-aquifer.

9. U.S. General Accounting Offi ce (GAO), Freshwater Supply: States’ View of How Federal Agencies Could Help 

Them Meet the Challenges of Expected Shortages, GAO-03-514 (Washington, DC: GAO, July 2003), 5.

10. National Research Council (NRC), America’s Climate Choices website, http://americasclimatechoices.org/. 

11. Sujoy B. Roy, et al., Evaluating Sustainability of Projected Water Demands under Future Climate Change 

Scenarios (New York, NY: Natural Resources Defense Council, July 2010), iii, http://rd.tetratech.com/

climatechange/projects/doc/Tetra_Tech_Climate_Report_2010_lowres.pdf. 

12. EPA, “Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results: Summary of Water Quality Assessments 

for Each Waterbody Type,” EPA website, iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control.

13. Gilbert F. White, The Global Possible: Resources, Development, and the New Century, ed. Robert Repetto 

(Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 1984).

14. EPA, Progress in Water Quality: An Evaluation of the National Investment in Municipal Wastewater Treatment 

(Washington, DC: EPA, June 2000), chapter 2.

15. Mitch Weiss, “Drought Could Force Nuke-Plant Shutdowns,” USA Today, January 25, 2008, http://www.

usatoday.com/weather/drought/2008-01-24-drought-power_N.htm. 

16. Mary Moss, “Nuclear Power Plants in the Southeastern United States May Need to Shut Down,” AssociatedContent.com, January 23, 2008, www.associatedcontent.com/article/560407/nuclear_power_plants_in_

the_southeastern.html.

17. Susan Bakker, et al., 2003 Integrated Energy Policy Report (Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission, 

2003).

18. U.S. Census Bureau, “Population Estimates,” U.S. Census Bureau website, www.census.gov/popest/states/

NST-ann-est.html.

19. Joan F. Kenny, et al., Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2005 (Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, 

2009), 43.

20. Ibid.

21. Kenny, et al., Estimated Use of Water, 1. The statistics provided for energy sector water withdrawals are for 

gross water withdrawals in 2005, nearly all of which came from surface water sources. This statistic does not 

account for water reintroduced into surface water sources after being used (i.e., net water withdrawals). 

22. Ibid. The statistics provided for agricultural water withdrawals are for gross water withdrawals in 2005, 

nearly all of which came from surface water sources. This statistic does not account for water reintroduced 

into surface water sources after being used (i.e., net water withdrawals).

23. Paul Vallely, “The Other Global Crisis: Rush to Biofuels Is Driving Up Price of Food,” The Independent, April 

12, 2008, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/the-other-global-crisis-rush-to-biofuels-isdriving-up-price-of-food-808138.html. 

24. Louis A. Helfrich and Richard J. Neves, Sustaining America’s Aquatic Biodiversity: Freshwater Fish Biodiversity 

and Conservation (Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2009), 1.

25. Master, Flack, and Stein, Rivers of Life, 1, 8.

26. California Department of Water Resources, “Planning and Local Assistance: California Water Plan,” State of 

California website, http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/. 

27. Cooperative Conservation America website, http://www.cooperativeconservationamerica.org.

28. Family Farm Alliance, Family Farm Alliance Western Water Management Case Studies (Klamath, OR: Family 

Farm Alliance, July 2010), 9.

29. Ibid., 13-15.

30. The American Institute of Architects (AIA), “20 River Terrace – The Solaire,” AIA/COTE Top Ten Green Projects 

website, http://www.aiatopten.org/hpb/overview.cfm?ProjectID=273. 

31. EPA, “Great Lakes: Basic Information,” EPA website, www.epa.gov/glnpo/basicinfo.html. 

32. NRC, Urban Stormwater Management in the United States (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 

2009). 

33. EPA, Introduction to EPA’s Drinking Water Source Protection Programs (Washington, DC: EPA, 2003).

34. North Carolina Division of Water Quality, “Local Source Water Protection Pays,” Streamlines: A Newsletter 

for North Carolina Water Supply Watershed Administrators 6, no. 2 (2002), 1-4, http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/

wswp/SL/v6i2.pdf.

35. Science and Technology Board and NRC, Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management 

(Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2001). 

36. Juliet Christian-Smith, et al., California Farm Water Success Stories (Oakland, CA: Pacifi c Institute, March 

2010), 70, http://www.pacinst.org/reports/success_stories/success_stories.pdf.

37. GAO, Water Infrastructure: Information on Financing, Capital Planning, and Privatization, GAO-02-764 

(Washington, DC: GAO, August 2002).

38. Agriculture’s Clean Water Alliance website, http://www.acwa-rrws.org/. 

39. P.C.D. Milly, K.A. Dunne, and A.V. Vecchia, “Global Pattern of Trends in Streamfl ow and Water Availability in a 

Changing Climate,” Nature 438 (November 17, 2005), 347–350. 

40. EPA, The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis, EPA-816-R-02-020 (Washington, DC: 

EPA, September 2002). The $540 billion fi gure is in 2002 dollars. 

41. Brett Walton, “U.S. Urban Residents Cut Water Usage; Utilities are Forced to Raise Prices,” WaterNews, April 

19, 2010, www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2010/world/u-s-urban-residents-cut-water-usage-utilitiesare-forced-to-raise-prices/. 

42. Christina Basin Water Quality Management Strategy website, www.wr.udel.edu/cb/.

43. EPA, Christina River, EPA’s Targeted Watersheds Grant Program, EPA 840-F-04-002g (Washington, DC: EPA, 

2003).

44. EPA, “Targeted Watersheds Grant Program,” EPA website, www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/initiative/.

45. Beth Thomas, “Clean Water Partnership Receives $1 Million Grant,” UDaily, June 25, 2003, www.udel.edu/

PR/UDaily/2003/cleanwater062503.html.

46. Lydia Saad, “Water Pollution Americans’ Top Green Concern,” Gallup.com, March 25, 2009, http://www.

gallup.com/poll/117079/water-pollution-americans-top-green-concern.aspx. 

47. Erica Gies, “Rising Bottled Water Sales Trigger Strong Reaction from U.S. Conservationists,” New York Times, 

March 19, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/business/worldbusiness/19iht-rbogbottle.html. 

48. EPA, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment, Fourth Report to Congress, EPA 816-F-09-

003 (Washington, DC: EPA, February 2009), i.
Lynn Broaddus, Ph.D., M.B.A.

Director, Environment Programs

The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread

33 E. Four Mile Rd.

Racine, WI 53402

(262) 681-3344

www.johnsonfdn.org

John Ehrmann, Ph.D.

Senior Partner

Meridian Institute

PO Box 1829

105 Village Place

Dillon, CO 80435

(970) 513-8340

www.merid.org

Graphic design by Ryan Kish and Michael Karter, Jasculca/Terman and Associates, Inc., Chicago, IL. 

Jasculca/Terman and Associates, Inc. also served as communications consultant for 

The Freshwater Forum and The Freshwater Summit. 

For more information about Charting New Waters: A Call to Action to Address 

U.S. Freshwater Challenges please contact:
January 2012

Financing Sustainable 

Water Infrastructure

Convening Report
©2012

Published by The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread

Racine, Wisconsin

Printed on post-consumer recycled paper
Meeting Convened by 

American Rivers

Ceres

The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread

July – August, 2011

Financing Sustainable 

Water Infrastructure

Convening Report

1

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Report Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The Challenges We Face: 

Obstacles to Transforming Our Water Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Opportunities and Solutions:

Sustainable Financing for Sustainable Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Steps for Creating Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Attachments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Attachment A: Background Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Attachment B: Concept & Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Attachment C: Wingspread Meeting Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Attachment D: Meeting Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Contents
2

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Our nation’s freshwater infrastructure faces a critical juncture. Largely built on systems 

developed during the 19th and early 20th centuries, our water infrastructure is aging, our 

technology outdated and our governance systems ill equipped to handle rising demand and 

environmental challenges. Additional strain is being placed on these systems from a variety of 

sources, including pressures from urbanization and changing climate conditions, such as increases 

in both droughts and extreme one-day precipitation events. 

While these challenges are significant, they are not insurmountable. In fact, they can be viewed 

as drivers of much-needed change in how we finance and develop our water systems to meet 

future demands. New financing models and pricing flexibility, which are necessary to pay for 

new infrastructure and to support legacy systems, provide enormous opportunity for positive 

transformation necessary to keep pace with the rapid changes being experienced by counties, 

municipalities and investor owned utilities.

This report seeks to tackle these issues and deliver some recommendations on how to understand 

and confront the pressing need for more sustainable and integrated water infrastructure financing 

models. This report is the product of a meeting convened by The Johnson Foundation at 

Wingspread, in collaboration with American Rivers and Ceres, which brought together a group of 

experts to discuss ways to drive funding toward the infrastructure we need for the 21st century. 

Specifically, this group focused on the following questions:

• What new financing techniques can communities use to pay for integrated and sustainable 

infrastructure approaches?

• How can we direct private capital toward more sustainable water management projects? 

The report finds that while options for more cost-effective, resilient and environmentally sustainable 

systems are available, they are not the norm. In fact, investment in inflexible and expensive 

“siloed” water systems is still pervasive, despite the fact that money available for financing water 

infrastructure is increasingly scarce.

Of equal concern is the inefficiency of the existing systems, which lose some 6 billion gallons 

of expensive, treated water each day due to leaky and aging pipes—some 14 percent of the 

nation’s daily water use. This point is underscored by the fact that the American Society of Civil 

Engineers gives the nation’s water systems a D-, the lowest grade of any infrastructure including 

roads and bridges.

Executive Summary
3

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

The report also details the various financing mechanisms available to different water systems. While 

municipal bonds are the debt instrument of choice for utilities large enough to be able to attract 

capital from markets, the vast majority of water systems must rely on cash, state revolving loan funds, 

or other low-interest loan programs at the state and federal level. In fact, only about 1,500-2,000 of 

the roughly 52,000 water systems in the United States are large enough to issue their own bonds. 

Given these constraints, some systems are turning to private equity as a financing source.

There are, of course, numerous obstacles and challenges that stand in the way of transforming 

our water systems to ones that are more sustainable, resilient and cost-effective. One of the 

main impediments to change is the very nature of the systems themselves, where potable water, 

wastewater, stormwater, greywater and rainwater are not treated as part of an interconnected 

system, but rather as distinct, separately financed and regulated units.

In addition, the rate-paying public and locally elected officials must come to grips with the temporary 

nature of federal subsidies for infrastructure. Once these subsidies expire, ratepayers are left holding 

the bag for funding further maintenance, inspection and upkeep, which can be politically unpopular. 

Therefore, many jurisdictions are not able to fully recapture all relevant costs, leading to long-term 

financial shortfalls and suboptimal maintenance and upkeep of systems. 

While these challenges and obstacles are formidable, the report makes clear that they are not 

insurmountable. Progress towards more sustainable, resilient and cost-effective systems is attainable, 

particularly if a long-term view is taken. While there is no silver bullet, the report outlines pathways 

that will improve chances of success. These include:

• Recognize that local pressures will drive local solutions. Our water systems are as diverse 

as the drivers of change that impact them. But solutions are emerging at the local level, including 

green infrastructure, closed loop systems and recycling. Financing models need to be developed 

that can support this type of local activity, which can then be scaled up.

• Consumers should be given choices and options. Today’s water systems typically provide 

one product at a single price—focusing on potable water. While that has served us well, it is also 

true that potable water is the most expensive kind of water and is widely used for non-drinking 

purposes such as watering lawns, flushing toilettes and showering. Consumers should be given 

options that include differentiated rates for drinking water versus other types. Additionally, water 

systems should explore how to move beyond “minimum cost rates” in order to meet customer 

demands.
4

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

• The financial health of our water systems is directly linked to their long-term sustainability.

Our nation’s water systems need to embrace various financing changes in order to ensure longterm sustainability. These include full-cost accounting of water services; incorporating valueadded services into the revenue picture to better align customers’ perceived value with products 

delivered; improving the capture and dissemination of performance data to drive efficiency; and 

considering consolidation of certain systems to enhance efficiency.

• Innovative financing models should be pursued to increase efficiency, add value to 

customers, and lower costs for providers. These models should include: mechanisms to expand 

the pool of water service funding to non-traditional partners; increasing incentives and markets 

for distributed water services that include “low impact development,” such as on-site treated 

wastewater for buildings; and other green infrastructure initiatives.

• Alternative market-based solutions should be explored and evaluated for scalability. These 

solutions could include: properly valuing and pricing ecosystems services, which provide enormous 

value yet are largely unaccounted for in the present system; developing securities to aggregate 

customer-financed projects such as greater “where it falls” water management; and creating private 

investment opportunities for efficiency gains from such things as retrofitting and closed-looped 

water systems in order to reduce system impacts and improve efficiency at both the building and 

neighborhood levels.

This summary provides an overview of the main sections and themes contained in the report, but is 

not a substitute for the full breadth of depth offered in the following pages.
5

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Report Process

The Johnson Foundation, in collaboration with 

American Rivers and Ceres, convened a group of 

experts at Wingspread to discuss ways to leverage 

public funding and incentives as well as private 

financing to drive innovation and resources toward 

more sustainable and integrated management of 

water resources in the United States. This meeting 

was set apart from similar efforts to discuss 

water infrastructure systems by the unique mix of 

expertise represented. Public and private water utility 

managers, investment managers, investors, municipal 

bond raters and underwriters, non-governmental 

organizations, foundations and other stakeholders 

gathered to discuss the range of issues being faced 

and begin to chart the pathways toward innovative 

and sustainable funding mechanisms that support 

the long-term sustainability of our water systems—

both built and natural. 

The needs of communities vary significantly even 

though their challenges are similar. There is not a 

consistent approach that will work for all, rather a 

range of options and tools that allow for customized 

approaches that meet a range of interests. The shift 

toward a more sustainable and economically viable 

future will not likely be driven primarily by sweeping 

legislation or legal mandates, but by thousands of 

local infrastructure investment decisions. If those 

decisions are going to 

result in a more sustainable 

future, utilities must 

look for a portfolio of 

financing alternatives at 

the same time they are 

developing alternatives 

for more resilient systems. 

The convening was 

designed around three 

elements of a facilitated 

dialogue process. Two 

virtual convenings and 

one in-person meeting were conducted during the 

summer of 2011 as follows:

•	Webinar 1, July 26, 2011: 

“What is Sustainable Water Infrastructure?”

•	Webinar 2, August 10, 2011: 

“Unpacking the Financing Options”

•	In-person convening at The Johnson Foundation 

at Wingspread, Racine, Wisconsin, 

August 16–18, 2011

Commitments to action

A unique component of this 

meeting was that each of the 

participants offered to advance 

solutions to the issues brought 

forth in the conference by 

committing to specific actions. 

Those commitments are included 

in this report.
6

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Source: World Meteorological Organization (WRO), Geneva, 1996, Global Environmental Outlook (GEO), 2000, United Nations Environment 

Programme (UNEP), Earthscan, London, 1999. Slides courtesy of Mark Shannon, Center of Advanced Materials for the Purification of Water with 

Systems (WaterCAMPWS), used with permission.

Water withdrawal as a percentage of total available water

1995 2025

more than 40% from 20% to 10%

 from 40% to 20% less than 10%

Background

As the nation’s water infrastructure ages and 

populations grow beyond the capacity of existing 

systems, we will need to deploy hundreds of 

billions of dollars to repair and expand drinking 

water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure. 

Simultaneously, our water infrastructure needs 

to be more flexible and resilient to increasingly 

unpredictable climate conditions that are forecast 

to become even more volatile in the future. As with 

our transportation and energy infrastructure, the 

nation’s water infrastructure is at a critical juncture. 

An increasing array of options are emerging for 

transitioning toward more cost-effective, resilient, 

and environmentally sustainable solutions. However, 

investment in expensive, inflexible “siloed” water 

systems remains the norm. Regardless of the kind of 

systems we design, money for water infrastructure 

will be tight. We will need to identify new financing 

alternatives and spend those funds on the most 

effective use of our limited resources. 

Through presentations, breakout session discussions 

and background materials, participants in the 

convening explored the fundamental underpinnings 

of the challenges we face. In order to identify lasting 

and more sustainable solutions, we first need to 

understand:

• The looming freshwater crisis

• The water industry and water sector, and how our 

infrastructure is managed 

• What “sustainable” water infrastructure means

• Principles of financing water systems, including 

how funds are raised and deployed

A looming freshwater crisis

Many parts of the world face serious freshwater 

problems, and these are forecast to increase 

dramatically over the next 10 to 15 years 

(see Figure 1). Arid areas in the United States 

have long been challenged by scarce water, but 

population growth, competing economic uses, 

and dramatic changes in precipitation patterns are 

straining many areas to previously unknown levels. 

Average Sector Use: 

Domestic 10 percent, Industry 20 percent, Agriculture 70 percent Figure 1 
A USGS study that looked at tree rings over the 

past 500–1,000 years showed an unprecedented 

decline in snowpack in the Rockies since the 

1980s as compared to the historical record. Snow 

“reservoirs” provide water for 70 million people in 

the West, thus precipitation shifts will have a major 

impact on a large swath of the economy.1 Nationally, 

estimates suggest that by 2040 we may need from 

29 to 62 percent more water to serve our growing 

population and higher energy demands.2 (Energy 

uses more water, primarily for energy generation and 

cooling, than any other sector except agriculture.) 

And although technology and water efficiency efforts 

may flatten that curve, we will still need to be vigilant 

to avoid having clean water supplies become a 

serious constraint to economic growth.

Across the entire country, communities are struggling 

to meet increased water needs, to respond to 

longer and deeper droughts, and changes in snow 

and rainfall patterns, and also to limit damage from 

more intense storms. Over the past 100 years, 

the occurrence of extreme one-day precipitation 

events has increased (see Figure 2). Models for 

the Great Lakes, the drinking water source for 40 

million people, suggest that raw sewage overflows 

into the lakes could increase by 20 to 50 percent 

as city sewers are increasingly overwhelmed by 

7

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure 

1 “USGS Study Finds Recent Snowpack Declines in the Rocky Mountains Unusual Compared to Past Few Centuries,” U.S. Department of the 

Interior, accessed January 6, 2012, http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/USGS-Study-Finds-Recent-Snowpack-Declines-in-the-RockyMountains-Unusual-Compared-to-Past-Few-Centuries.cfm.

2 Figures courtesy of Mark Shannon, Center of Advanced Materials for the Purification of Water with Systems (WaterCAMPWS).

The figure shows the percentage of the land area of the lower 48 states where a much greater than normal portion of total annual precipitation has 

come from extreme single-day precipitation events. The bars represent individual years, while the line is a smoothed nine-year moving average.

Source: U.S. EPA, “Climate Change Indicators in the United States,” April, 2010, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/pdfs/

ClimateIndicators_full.pdf.

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

25

20

15

10

5

0

Percent of land area

Year

Figure 2 Extreme One-Day Precipitation Events in the Lower 48 States, 1910-2008
more intense storms.3 The U.S. EPA estimates 

that today between 1.8 and 3.5 million Americans 

get sick annually from recreational contact with 

sewage-contaminated waters from sanitary sewer 

overflows.4 And if pathogens in sewage penetrate 

water treatment defenses the risks are much more 

serious, as Milwaukee experienced in 1993 when 

400,000 were sickened and 80 people died from 

cryptosporidium in the city’s drinking water.5

Added to these challenges is the fact that existing 

water infrastructure systems in the United States 

are rapidly aging, with many pipes and treatment 

plants already beyond their effective lives. The 

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gives 

the nation’s water systems the lowest grade of all 

infrastructure, a D-, though bridges and roads get 

much more attention.6 Ten years ago, EPA estimated 

that by 2020 the deteriorating age and condition of 

nearly half the water and sewer pipes in the United 

States would be considered “poor,” “very poor,” 

or “life elapsed” (see Figure 3). This is not only 

inconvenient and a strain on local ratepayers when 

replacement costs hit, but nationally, we lose over 

six billion gallons of expensive, treated water each 

day because of leaky, aging pipes. That represents 

14 percent of the nation’s daily water use. Even 

more worrisome, we are losing large elements of our 

natural or “green infrastructure” that provide hardto-price but extremely valuable ecosystem services 

from flood storage to water supply and filtration, and 

that also serve as the basis for $730 billion in annual 

United States economic activity, according to the 

outdoor recreation industry.7

According to the EPA, 22 states have lost at least 

50 percent of their original wetlands and seven 

states have lost over 80 percent of their original 

wetlands (see Figure 4). Wetland losses continue 

to climb despite efforts over the past thirty years to 

slow the pace. Many small streams—the capillaries of 

the watershed—are also routinely filled in or forced 

underground into pipes where they are not available 

to wildlife and unable to perform essential functions 

like slowing and storing rainwater and recycling 

excess nutrients. In addition, development in 

floodplains and engineered structures like riverbank 

hardening, levees, and floodwalls eliminate the 

natural ability of rivers to move within their floodplains 

and store floodwater. 

8

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

3 U.S. EPA, A Screening Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Mitigation in the Great 

Lakes and New England Regions (Final Report), (Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-07/033F, 2008).

4 “SSO Fact Sheet: Why Control Sanitary Sewer Overflows?” U.S. EPA, July 21, 2003, accessed January 10, 2012, http://www.epa.gov/npdes/

sso/control/index.htm.

5 N.J. Hoxie, J.P. Davis, J.M. Vergeront, R.D. Nashold, and K.A. Blair, “Cryptosporidiosis-associated mortality following a massive waterborne 

outbreak in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,” American Journal of Public Health 87 (1997): 2032-2035.

6 American Society of Civil Engineers, accessed January 6, 2012, http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org.

7 Outdoor Industry Foundation, “The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy,” Fall, 2006, http://www.outdoorindustry.org/images/researchfiles/

RecEconomypublic.pdf?26.

Source: U.S. EPA, “The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure 

Gap Analysis,” September, 2002, http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/

ogwdw/upload/2005_02_03_gapreport.pdf.

9%

33%

11% 12%

13%

23%

2020

Fair

Life elapsed

Excellent

Poor

Good

Very Poor

Projected Percentage of 

Pipe by Classification, 2020 Figure 3
Losing our natural infrastructure has costly impacts. 

As wetland losses have risen, the Army Corps of 

Engineers has increased flood control expenditures, 

but flood damages have risen faster.8 The effect 

on aquatic fish and wildlife is also telling: In North 

America, 40 percent of freshwater species are 

extinct or at risk of extinction, and scientists have 

documented a 50 percent decline in populations of 

freshwater species over 30 years.9

Managing our water infrastructure

Our water infrastructure serves a number of 

purposes. Water supply, wastewater, and 

stormwater are the most recent divisions, though 

in reality it is all “one water” simply moving through 

our systems in stages of cleanliness and delivery. 

In this meeting, the conversation focused primarily 

on urban uses of water: residential, commercial, 

and industrial supply, wastewater treatment, and 

stormwater management. The agencies that oversee 

these responsibilities vary in their form, governance, 

ownership and structure. They include public as well as 

private systems, and public systems that are managed 

by private contract. Their jurisdiction may coincide 

with a municipality or they may be a special district 

that doesn’t directly align with political boundaries. 

Oversight can be appointed or elected. They may 

supply directly to “retail” customers (homeowners, 

businesses, etc.) or supply to a wholesale customer 

which in turn redistributes, or both. 

9

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

8 D. Hey, J. Kostel, and D. Montgomery, “An Ecological Solution to the Flood Damage Problem,” in Finding the Balance Between Floods, 

Flood Protection, and River Navigation, ed. Criss and Kusky (Center for Environmental Sciences at Saint Louis University, 2009), 73-80.

http://www.wetlands-initiative.org/images/pdf-docs/pulblications/FLOOD/research/eco_soln_flood_damage_problem.pdf.

9 “Native Aquatic Species,” Pacific Rivers Council, accessed January 6, 2012, http://pacificrivers.org/conservation-priorities/native-aquatic-species.

Twenty-two states have lost at least 50 percent of their original wetlands. Seven states—Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, Iowa, California, 

and Ohio—have lost over 80 percent of their originial wetlands. Since the 1970s, the most extensive losses of wetlands have been in Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Arkansas, Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina.

Source: Mitch and Gosselink, Wetlands, 2nd Edition, (Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1993).

-31

-38

-52

-30

-33 -36

-52

-67

-48

-35

-35

-49

-42

-50

-87

-81

-59

-59 -50 -23

-27

-49

-42 -24

-46

-85 -90

-56

-60

-20

-35

-9-28

-37 -74

-39

-54

-73

-50

-89

-87

-72

-46

-27

-38

-56

-50 -91

-0.1

-12

Figure 4 Percentage of Wetlands Acreage Lost, 1780s–1980s
What do we mean by 

“sustainable” water systems? 

Rather than re-hash the meaning of “sustainable” 

in the context of municipal water systems, we were 

able to build upon earlier efforts that addressed 

the components of sustainability.10 Multiple 

themes emerge from among the reports. Our water 

infrastructure, designed in the 19th and early 20th

centuries, no longer meets today’s needs and 

challenges. Water management agencies have 

focused for over 100 years on the hardware of water 

and wastewater management: the pipes, pumps and 

reservoirs needed to move the drinking water, waste 

and stormwater through the system or store it until 

needed. These rigid systems were designed and 

operated based on the assumption of stationarity 

in our natural systems. Those assumptions are 

now seen as short-sighted and no longer match 

our understanding of nature. We need to transition 

from systems built around managing water under 

historical conditions of “certainty” to those built 

around flexibility to respond to unpredictable 

or rapidly changing conditions. First, we need 

to conceptualize our water infrastructure as an 

integrated system of natural water resource systems 

(green), and built/engineered pipes and treatment 

plants. We also need to move from an emphasis on 

centralized infrastructure to decentralized systems 

that are more resource and energy efficient, and 

scalable from the site to city level. We have to 

integrate all water systems to use the “right water 

for the right need” (e.g. watering landscapes with 

rainwater or non-potable water), reducing treatment 

costs and the length of pipe needed to fulfill 

specific water needs. We must start extracting the 

significant resources (nutrients and energy) found in 

wastewater rather than discarding them as waste. 

And finally, every dollar spent on water infrastructure 

must provide multiple benefits, such as lowering 

urban temperatures, increasing green space and 

parks, or creating local jobs. 

10

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Principles of sustainable water infrastructure

Basic principles for sustainable water infrastructure management:

1. Adaptable—Maximize flexibility and future adaptability to climate change and other conditions

2. Watershed scale—Plan and implement infrastructure at a watershed scale

3. Natural infrastructure—Protect and restore natural system functions 

4. Decentralize—Integrate decentralized, distributed green infrastructure that replicates natural hydrology with 

built infrastructure

5. One water—Integrate drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater and fit the best water to the use

6. Resource Efficiency—Optimize conservation and efficiency investments before developing new supply or 

expanding treatment

7. Multiple benefits—Maximize the environmental, social, and economic benefit of every infrastructure dollar

8. Pricing—Price water, wastewater, and stormwater for ratepayers/customers to meet the total cost of 

sustainability requirements

9. Full life cycle—Plan, manage, and account for full life cycle infrastructure expenditures

10. Asset management—Apply best industry practices for repair/rehabilitation and replacement and innovative 

management 

11. Good governance—Governing boards, city councils, and special utility boards should be designed to ensure 

sustainability and transparency

10 R.D. Bolger, D. Monsma, and R. Nelson, “Sustainable Water Systems: Step One—Redefining the Nation’s Infrastructure Challenge. A report of 

the Aspen Institute’s Dialogue on Sustainable Water Infrastructure in the U.S.,” May, 2009. Additional references can be found in Attachment A: 

Background Materials.
These are the realities of our fiscally-constrained 

and climate-altered world. We are at a turning point 

with our water infrastructure investment. We can 

either continue to build the equivalent of 1960s-era 

mainframe computers or move to laptops, tablets 

and cloud storage. (Refer to Attachment A for more 

background on sustainable water infrastructure.)

Understanding the 

financing of water systems 

Water systems have two primary approaches to 

financing system improvements and maintenance: 

cash financing or debt financing. Cash financing 

is limited to the revenue at hand, which is usually 

from water rates, service fees, connection fees from 

new accounts, or taxes. Because water treatment 

and delivery is a capital-intensive endeavor, cash 

is usually insufficient to finance major system 

enhancements. Debt financing is the typical way 

that utilities raise upfront capital to invest in their 

systems. For systems large enough to sell debt 

on the capital markets, municipal bonds are the 

debt instrument of choice. Water utilities can issue 

revenue bonds that are backed by cash flows from 

water rates, fees or dedicated taxes, or they can 

issue general obligation bonds that are backed by 

the general tax-raising ability of the local government. 

Systems whose capital needs are too small for the 

bond market typically rely on state revolving loan 

funds or other low-interest lending programs at the 

state and federal level. Only about 1,500-2,000 of 

the roughly 52,000 water systems in the United 

States are large enough to issue their own bonds 

(see Figure 5). For the rest, cash or federal or state 

loans and grants are the predominant means of 

financing system improvements. 

Because cash, public grants and low-interest 

loans are limited, and because smaller systems 

may be serving populations with lower income and 

operating at diseconomies of scale, their funding 

needs and solutions are very different from those 

of large water systems which deliver the majority of 

water in the United States. As funding needs and 

system disrepair become dire, many 

of these systems may have few 

options other than public-private 

partnerships or privatization.

Following the economic downturn, 

the ease of financing capital 

improvement plans through the 

capital markets changed. The 

housing collapse took with it 

the bond insurers that protected 

investors from unexpected credit 

default of bond issuers, meaning 

that credit quality—including the ability to honor 

debt obligations by securing sufficient revenue—was 

more important than ever. In addition, the spread 

(or difference in interest rate) for AAA-rated issuers 

and AA or A widened significantly from before the 

11

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Funding options

• Rates and charges

• Property taxes 

• Fees (e.g. connection)

• Grants

• Insurance

• Customer services 

• Private investment

• Debt-based capital 

financing

Source: U.S. EPA, EPA Factoids: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2008, 

(EPA/816/K-08/004, 2008).

0

20

40

60

80

100

Utilities Population (292 million)

Percentage

Population Served

Utilities and Population by System Size

<500 501–

3,300

3,300–

10,000

10,000–

100,000

>100,000

One percent of the utilities serve 

46 percent of the population Figure 5
downturn. Whereas AA-rated systems in 2008 that 

may have only paid 0.20 percent more to finance a 

capital improvement project than the highest-rated 

entities, in 2011 they were paying 1.0 percent more 

in interest. The spread in interest rates is even 

higher for issuers in some states—in 2010, some 

1.8 percent higher for California systems, for 

example. For a typical bond issuance of several 

hundred million dollars, this higher interest brings 

significantly more cost to ratepayers. The increased 

spread is offset, however, by extraordinarily low 

market rates. Whether the spread between the 

least risky utilities and the rest will remain as wide 

after economic recovery is unknown. However, the 

increasing sensitivity of investors to hidden risks 

and the growing repository of tools available to 

investors to assess water risks suggest that utilities 

can expect to see increasing costs and scrutiny for 

capital financing. 

Investor-owned utilities (IOUs)

While most water utilities in the United States are 

owned by local governments, around 20 percent 

of water is delivered and treated by investorowned utilities. Many of these are publicly-traded 

companies, but some are privately owned. For these 

companies, the ongoing need to recover costs 

and build more efficient systems to manage costs 

remains the same as in the public sector. Unlike 

most utilities owned by local governments, IOUs 

must submit proposed rates to regulators in Public 

Utility Commissions. These regulators shape the 

operating environment, recoverable costs and return 

on equity for IOUs and are an important audience 

for enabling sustainable water management within 

regulated markets. 

12

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

11 Though often confused with each other, the private sector and private capital are not synonymous.

As the debt capacity of public systems comes 

against significant funding needs, some systems 

are turning to private equity or infrastructure funds 

to finance system improvements. Private capital 

can and does play very different roles in the water 

sector, a nuance that is often lost in the discussion 

around “privatization” of water assets. At one end 

of the spectrum, public water utilities can outsource 

management of some aspects of the system to 

the private sector—this is often done through a 

time-limited contract or may even be implemented 

through a lease of assets. For example, a public 

water utility may contract a large water services 

provider to manage the day-to-day operations of a 

water or sewage treatment plant. In many cases, 

private capital may have nothing to do with this 

arrangement, as the water services provider may 

be a publicly-traded company.11 This arrangement 

is very different from the role that a private equity 

or infrastructure fund may play. A private equity 

fund may construct a water treatment plant using 

investor capital, with return to investors generated 

by water sales to a public utility. In some instances, 

a private equity or infrastructure fund may even 

wholly privatize a water system, so all assets and 

management responsibilities are in the hands of the 

fund. Privatization of public systems can meet the 

immediate needs of distressed systems, but the rate 

of return required by private investors is generally 

much higher than for municipal bond investors. 

Whatever the source of financing, capital is never 

free. Ultimately the money invested in the system and 

the premium to the investor must be paid. Revenues 

from ratepayers will continue to be the primary 

source of repayment.
The Challenges We Face: 

Obstacles to Transforming Our Water Systems 

of the water sector as a whole, the upfront capital 

and resulting rate increases that will be sought as 

these systems age could accumulate to present 

real affordability challenges to customers. In recent 

years funding shortfalls have led to renewed calls 

for federal funding of infrastructure. The National 

Infrastructure Bank is one vehicle that has been 

proposed to allocate federal funding to leverage 

private capital. At present, however, the proposed 

fund does not address the need to prioritize 

sustainable and resilient infrastructure. 

Increasing conservation, decreasing 

revenue, increasing costs

One trend that many utilities are seeing is 

decreased per capita use of water. For example, 

13

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Source: CollinsWoerman

As we think about a strategy for financing more 

sustainable water infrastructure systems, we 

need to do so with a clear understanding of the 

complex challenges the industry is facing and an 

understanding of the financing factors influencing 

the alternatives. By helping industry members and 

key stakeholders understand the challenges, we 

hope to generate more promising decisions and 

a new way of doing business. At the same time, 

we are beginning to shift the conversation with the 

capital investment community to help create a means 

of better informing their decisions and helping to 

remove financial hurdles to developing more resilient 

water systems. The group discussed a wide range of 

potential challenges.

A historically segregated 

approach to water management 

Presently, most systems are managed as centralized 

and single-purpose water infrastructure, each 

focusing on one part of a whole: drinking water, 

wastewater and stormwater (see Figure 6).

There is a growing consensus that such siloed 

systems are not effectively adapted to the challenges 

that the water industry will face in the 21st Century. 

Furthermore, they do not allow for an integrated 

approach to managing for mutual benefits 

and harnessing the value of the resources. 

Several negative consequences result, one of which 

is financial. 

The cost of financing siloed systems

Because water systems are rarely integrated, many 

households and businesses are being serviced by 

two to three different water utilities. This means 

that the water-related debt burden for households 

and businesses may be multiples of the average 

system’s long-term debt per household. If drinking 

water utilities’ unmet capital needs are representative 

Figure 6 Siloed Systems
starting in the 1960’s, Seattle Public Utilities has 

periodically projected water demand and proactively 

responded by implementing 

conservation programs, 

including conservation 

pricing, to help offset future 

demand (see Figures 7a 

and 7b). Despite a near 

doubling of the population 

the projected increases 

have never materialized 

and total water use has 

instead decreased over 

the last twenty years. The 

Seattle experience is an 

extreme example of a trend 

observed in other regions. 

From a natural resource 

conservation perspective, 

this trend is beneficial. But 

it raises challenges for utilities faced with large fixed 

costs for infrastructure capitalization, growing per 

unit operating costs and decreasing revenues.

Lack of full-cost pricing

Another broad challenge for the full spectrum of 

water agencies is the need to recover costs for the 

regular maintenance and improvement of the system. 

In most cases, a substantial portion of the initial 

capital investment was heavily subsidized by federal 

grants, thus allowing utilities to provide service 

without passing on the infrastructure’s full cost, 

much less the externalized costs of water withdrawal 

or pollutant discharge. Customers who have enjoyed 

these subsidies often do not understand why 

their water rates are suddenly increasing as new 

investments are made to maintain infrastructure. As 

a result, many utilities choose to defer maintenance, 

deploy capital investments, and instead forgo 

improving their systems’ environmental performance 

while running operating deficits. Understandably, 

locally elected or appointed officials are often 

reluctant to accept a rate structure that would allow 

full recapture of all relevant costs, including the 

routine inspection and maintenance of the system. 

This leads to long-term financial shortfalls and 

equipment that is insufficiently maintained 

and updated. 

14

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Full life cycle costs of 

water systems

• Operations

• Maintenance

• Repair and replacement

• Growth/expansion

• System improvements consistent 

with industry standards 

• Evolution and transformation

This covers drinking water, 

wastewater, and stormwater.

Additionally, some participants 

highlighted the costs associated 

with un-captured externalities 

such as carbon emissions.

Source: Seattle Public Utilities

1967 SWD Forecast

1973 RIBCO Forecast

1980 Complan Forecast Medium

1980 Complan Forecast Medium-Low

1985 Complan Forecast Medium

1993 WSP Forecast 

1997 Revised Forecast 

2001 WSP Forecast 

2003 Official Forecast 

2006 Draft Forecast 

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

360

340

320

300

280

260

240

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Annual MGD

Year

Actual Annual

Long-Range Planning

Water Demand and Past Forecasts for Seattle Public Utilities Figure 7a 
Lack of continuous funding that 

covers long-term, full life cycle 

of our water systems

Cash flows from rates, fees and taxes often fall 

short of covering the full costs of the system. As a 

result, systems must seek debt financing to address 

both upfront capital and long-term maintenance. 

Within the sector, there is no expectation of utilities 

consistently matching revenues to the full cost of 

service delivery and system maintenance (including 

replacement and repair schedules, triple bottom 

line impacts and long-term asset management). 

Furthermore, the utilities are not expected to take 

system maintenance costs into consideration for 

long-term planning (see Figure 8). As a result, 

systems are chronically underfunded.

Instead, needed system improvements frequently 

are deferred as revenues are only sufficient to meet 

debt obligations and operational costs. In some 

places, growth itself was relied upon to finance the 

maintenance of the existing system, in the form of 

connection fees. When growth slowed, some utilities 

absorbed significant shocks to their revenue. The 

alternative—matching the full costs to maintain the 

system to consistent revenues—is so rarely practiced 

that the sector as a whole could benefit from 

guidance. 

Lack of accounting for 

natural infrastructure or other 

ecosystems services

Our accounting systems have difficulty recognizing 

unconventional assets, particularly the natural 

assets that provide water storage, filtration, and 

delivery. This makes it difficult to include the value 

such assets provide on a utility’s balance sheet, 

or to finance the acquisition or development of 

these assets. In many cases the acquisition and 

management of these assets are much more 

15

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Source: Seattle Public Utilities

1967 SWD Forecast

1973 RIBCO Forecast

1980 Complan Forecast Medium

1980 Complan Forecast Medium-Low

1985 Complan Forecast Medium

1993 WSP Forecast 

1997 Revised Forecast 

2001 WSP Forecast 

2003 Official Forecast 

2006 Draft Forecast 

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

360

340

320

300

280

260

240

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Annual MGD

250

225

200

175

150

125

100

75

50

25

0

Annual MGD

Year

Year

Actual Annual

Actual Demand

1990 Forecast with 

No Conservation

2007 Forecast with Conservation

Unattributed Savings

Transitory Savings

Conservation Programs

Plumbing Code

Rate Impacts

System Operation Improvements

Impact of All Forms of Conservation 

Water Demand and Past Forecasts for Seattle Public Utilities Figure 7b 
economical than built infrastructure such as 

treatment plants and reservoirs; the most well-known 

case of this is New York City’s purchase of forested 

upstream land that filtered the city’s water at a tenth 

of the cost of a conventional filtration plant. 

Investor expectations

Whether public or investor-owned, utilities rely 

on capital markets to finance water infrastructure. 

While public water systems have traditionally been 

financed through the municipal bond market, the 

extraordinary needs of many systems are leading 

policymakers and utility directors to look beyond the 

bond market for much-needed capital. For investorowned utilities, both shareholders and bondholders 

provide investment capital. Consequently, investor 

expectations shape the way both public and investorowned utilities manage water.

Among those expectations are that the sector’s 

revenue streams are secure because the service 

is essential and monopolistic, and that the sector 

is managed by risk-averse professionals using 

proven technology. These factors cause the sector 

to be viewed as low risk, which for public systems 

especially results in a low risk premium demanded by 

municipal bond investors. Participants at Wingspread 

discussed emerging trends that might cause these 

assumptions to break down over the long term.

Rates of return

Public systems looking for new financing streams 

beyond the tax-exempt bond market should 

recognize that equity investors will expect a higher 

rate of return. Eventually that higher premium has to 

be recovered, whether through rates, fees or taxes.

16

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Source: Seattle Public Utilities

100+ 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5

Estimated Number of Sewer Backups per Year

100%

Reactive

100%

Proactive

$ Regulatory

non-compliance

costs

SPU is here

SPU wants

to be here

Exponentially rising costs: Total backup 

elimination cannot be achieved

Proactive

CCTV costs

Pipe rehab

costs

Grease

abatement costs

Chemical root

treatment costs

Environmental/

social costs

Claims costs

Labor and 

equipment costs

An Example: Tying Together Service Levels, Lifecycle Costing, 

and the Triple Bottom Line Figure 8 
Monopolistic, essential service provider 

While utilities largely operate in a non-competitive 

environment, new technologies are emerging that 

could disrupt their historic status as monopolies. 

Onsite water filtration can allow water users to 

obtain high quality water and wastewater without 

any reliance on centralized water utilities. While this 

is an emerging trend, most utilities do not factor this 

variable into future demand projections. Even without 

disruptive technologies, demand for municipal 

water has dropped significantly over past decades. 

Yet many systems tend to linearly extrapolate 

historic demand to determine the necessary rate 

adjustments to repay capital programs. As the cost 

of utilities’ services increase, water behavior and 

technologies are likely to adapt to force demand 

downward. For overleveraged systems, this inward 

demand shift can trigger a credit deterioration 

spiral. Utilities and investors should recognize these 

dynamic trends.

Risk aversion, dependable technology

One theme that was clear is that even though utility 

managers are very risk averse, rate-setting bodies 

may not be. Chronic deferred maintenance and 

under-investment are hidden risks that may not 

be reflected in the price paid for capital. Further, 

the challenges facing the sector will require new 

approaches, including decentralized and less 

proven technologies. This will require new skills, 

experimentation, and the acceptance that not 

everything will succeed. Increased innovation will 

need to become part of routine operations and 

should be rewarded appropriately. 

Data-poor market

Investors have typically valued the traditional 

monopolistic, essential-service aspects of the water 

infrastructure sector. Very little data is available 

on the state of water systems or their sensitivities 

to declining water demand, volatile supplies, and 

variable costs of energy and other system inputs. 

As a result, the market does not factor the risk or 

resilience of the system into the prices. Instead, 

investor biases (for example, biases against water 

utilities in the Southwest or Great Lakes) trump the 

actual performance of these utilities. Even rating 

agencies are challenged to find material information 

on system performance since so few utilities collect 

that information. Consequently, the utilities that are 

at the top of their class in terms of risk management 

or system maintenance are unlikely to see more 

competitive cost of capital. Better data would 

help the market price more correctly and would 

help utilities manage their risks by benchmarking 

themselves against other systems.

Rate suppression

Americans pay around a dollar for 3⁄4 ton of water 

delivered to their homes each day12 and similarly 

low rates for sewerage services. Some cities have 

experienced significant rate increases in recent 

years, yet resistance to bringing rates in line with the 

real costs of services persists despite the relatively 

low cost of service. That is due in part to the reality 

that rate decisions tend to be short-term and 

politically influenced. Lack of political will to evolve 

our water systems and short political timelines can 

have a tendency to reinforce status-quo decisionmaking and put downward pressure on rates. 

Going forward, meeting public health and system 

performance needs while maintaining rates at 

2 percent Area Median Household Income 

(a threshold commonly used by the EPA) will be 

increasingly difficult, especially if we continue to 

build systems in the same way. In the meantime, 

the negative impacts of suppressed rates are felt 

in several ways.

17

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

12 Denver Water, “2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,” June 1, 2011, http://www.denverwater.org/docs/assets/ 6C28411A-E112-

FBD9-E5A84D8D42B9A128/2010_annual_report.pdf.
Short-term management decisions 

and higher cost of capital

Ultimately, this resistance to higher water rates 

often results in utilities exhibiting less-than-optimal 

system maintenance and neglecting long-term needs 

until a crisis forces them to act. At that point, a rate 

increase can be justified as a response to pending 

system failures. Ultimately the artificial suppression of 

water rates can defeat the very intention of keeping 

water affordable. Financing system improvements in 

response to crisis can force systems to go to market 

when their weak financial condition demands a 

higher rate of return. Ratepayers then end up paying 

more for system repairs in the form of higher interest 

payments and may be paying for poorer services. 

Perversely, this crisis-response mode can make 

utilities eligible for emergency funding available from 

state or federal government that is offered at a lower 

cost than market, which perpetuates the problem 

of reactive system management and persistent 

underpricing.

Under-valued water 

distorts consumer behavior

Historically, low rates for water services in many 

instances have encouraged inefficient water use and 

excessive water treatment demand by consumers. At 

one ideological extreme, consumers see water as an 

unlimited “right” and feel it should be free–without 

regard for the cost of treatment and delivery. 

Lack of public understanding and awareness

The general public, and ratepayers in particular, 

often don’t have the right information to understand 

the full costs of providing their clean drinking 

water, sanitation, and stormwater services. In 

addition, water utilities do not necessarily invest in 

understanding what services their customers value 

most. As a result, they have been resistant to rate 

increases to cover more costs, and the expectation 

remains that water should be as inexpensive as it 

has been historically. 

Limits of existing market instruments 

to fund decentralized systems

As utilities look beyond their own system to the built 

environment of the communities they serve, some are 

seeing that decentralized approaches may actually 

deliver higher value for their customers. For example, 

Philadelphia decided that a centralized stormwater 

system was less desirable for the city’s residents 

than a network of green infrastructure that yielded 

the multiple benefits of flood control, water quality 

protection, temperature moderation, and recreational 

amenities or aesthetic enjoyment. Yet the existing 

markets for financing water systems are not adapted 

to financing decentralized, customer-financed 

interventions. In many ways the problem is similar 

to the financing of energy efficiency or distributed 

energy generation. The bond markets are traditionally 

used to finance development of centralized systems 

that are wholly owned by the issuing entity and 

secured by the revenues and physical assets of the 

system. When a utility wants to finance work with 

its customer base to develop a citywide network of 

green infrastructure on private land, the bond market 

may no longer be a viable option. 

Variability in the systems 

While the majority of the utilities represented at 

the conference served large urban municipalities 

with growing customer bases, they recognized that 

significant diversity exists in the industry. There is not 

a consistent need among utilities that allows for a 

one-size-fits-all approach to financing transitions to 

sustainable systems. As a result, more work remains 

to understand and address the unique financial 

needs of big versus small systems, the related 

challenge of urban versus rural systems, 

and systems that serve growing, versus 

declining populations.

18

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure
Through presentations, plenary discussions, 

and small group sessions, participants explored 

incentives for funding sustainable water 

infrastructure, innovative financing options and 

mechanisms for transforming the industry. There was 

a recognition that near-term modest steps needed 

to be taken at the same time that the industry moves 

toward more transformative change. Discussion 

confirmed that utilities and resource planners across 

the country are using a range of mechanisms for 

financing capital investments in infrastructure and 

ecosystem restoration. Yet there is no silver bullet. 

No matter how water systems are financed, the 

primary challenge will remain: ensuring sufficient 

revenues to support repayment of the needed 

financing for capital improvements and resource 

intensive system upgrades.

This is the case with both traditional hard 

infrastructure and natural system designs. And it is 

especially true when considering the need to fund 

the full life cycle of sustainable systems. Given 

the tendency for systems to set rates and manage 

reserves to meet only near-term operating needs, the 

conference participants emphasized the imperative 

to plan for long-term needs (including aging, in-place 

systems) and begin to incorporate more resilient and 

flexible natural infrastructure elements. This shift in 

the culture of infrastructure planning must happen 

rapidly, as municipalities throughout the country face 

pressing needs. 

Is there a way to harness the sense of acute 

urgency to inspire action? The following steps were 

identified as key elements of a roadmap toward 

more sustainable decision making and more 

resilient systems.

We need to change our expectations 

of how we manage water 

The conversation made clear the fact that no single 

actor is going to catalyze change. Many players 

need to work together to realize a more sustainable 

vision for the future and design better alternatives, 

including:

• System “owners,” whether they are shareholders, 

or customers and ratepayers.

• Capital providers (the capital markets, investors, 

state revolving funds)

• Sector leaders and norm setters (leading utilities 

and trade associations)

• Interested “outsiders” (disruptive innovators, 

consultants, service providers, and nongovernmental organizations)

Solutions will be locally-driven

While there is no single solution for the distinct 

needs of communities, there are a growing set of 

tools that can be adapted to the needs of particular 

places. Participants agreed that the shift toward 

a more sustainable and economically viable future 

will not be driven by top-down mandates, but 

by thousands of local infrastructure investment 

decisions. These decisions will be forced by different 

pressures. In some places, the need to comply with 

strong water quality standards will spur innovation 

in distributed systems. In other instances, disruptive 

technologies like closed-loop water designs for 

buildings may be such a threat to water utilities’ 

traditional business models that utilities will have 

to change their approach to service provision. 

Whatever the drivers, there are changes happening 

in the water sector that demand new financing 

19

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Opportunities and Solutions: 

Sustainable Financing for Sustainable Infrastructure 
tools and renewed attention by investors on how 

well-prepared water systems are to face the sector’s 

changing business environment.

A handful of cities were cited as models in 

integrated water management, including Seattle, 

Philadelphia, and San Francisco. In size and 

socioeconomics, these cities face different realities 

than many other water systems in the country. While 

these leadership utilities can chart a path forward, 

the solutions for smaller or less wealthy communities 

may be different. 

Customers needs and values drive 

innovative and customized solutions

There is a difference between what people value 

about water and what their water service providers 

value. There is, however, agreement on what each 

group thinks is being provided: gallons of water at 

the lowest possible price. This shared definition of 

the product is a key factor that drives permanent 

under-investment in infrastructure. However, the 

spread in values creates an opportunity to price 

water based on its use—what the customer is willing 

to pay for such uses—and can create a new way of 

doing business for water service enterprises.

Nearly 200 gallons of water enters our houses each 

day. Most of the water we use is for keeping our 

lawns green, flushing, cleaning, and showering. Very 

little of it is actually used for drinking, the use that 

requires the highest standards for cleanliness. Users 

value each of those applications differently, and 

would probably pay different prices for each type of 

use. That small fraction that we drink, however, is 

what drives the cost of our water. Similarly most of 

what goes into the sewers is not sewage. But the 

cost of conveying and treating sanitary waste back 

to near-potable standards is what drives our bills. 

Water service providers have been very good at 

delivering the most expensive goods (drinking 

water and sewage treatment) at minimum costs. 

Utilities strive to provide service (gallons of an 

undifferentiated product) at the lowest cost. And 

because water services have been provided relatively 

inexpensively and in an undifferentiated fashion, 

the infrastructure tends to be invisible to ratepayers 

until there is a problem: service is interrupted, 

basements get flooded, a boil order is issued, 

sewers overflow, etc. 

But we are being charged too little for a product that 

is on average better than what we need. As long as 

costs are low, we will use it without differentiating 

or prioritizing among the various uses. When that 

small fraction of what we use makes every other use 

much more expensive, then different values might 

start to matter.

There is an opportunity in this era of increasing costs 

and infrastructure replacement needs to differentiate 

what customers are offered. Some may not wish 

to pay for irrigating lawns with drinking water, but 

would be willing to use a different source for a 

lower cost. Some may wish to pay a bit more for 

filtered water provided at the tap. Others may wish 

to secure insurance on their lateral connections so 

that they do not suffer (or inflict) sewage backups. 

Others might wish to invest in natural resource 

health in the areas their water comes from as 

insurance against future costs. Water “systems” 

should explore how to move beyond “minimum 

cost rates” to providing differentiated services 

based on what their customers value. This can be 

as straightforward as revisiting maintenance and 

construction activity based on the level of service 

customers want (as Seattle recently implemented), 

or it might be as complex as marketing other 

consumer goods. What is required, however, is that 

in an era of increasing rates, customers have the 

option to choose what they value and that providers 

begin to move from engineering economics to 

market economics.

20

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure
Recognizing the link between 

financial strength and sustainability

Participants underscored that financing and good 

management of water systems are inextricably linked 

and should include these steps: 

• Recognize the full cost of water services as 

part of a solution for creating sufficient and 

more stable revenues. Full life cycle pricing, 

a term for setting rates to reflect the true cost 

of current water services as well as future water 

supply and treatment needs, is the backbone of 

sustainable systems. Without stable and sufficient 

revenues, systems cannot deliver high quality 

services or environmental performance.

• Building support among ratepayers and 

regulators to support financially viable 

systems. Securing adequate rates or setting 

higher prices takes political will. If ratepayers 

are to willingly pay more for water, system 

managers must better understand what services 

their customers value and use that knowledge in 

messaging to regulators, political decision makers, 

and ratepayers. Ultimately, people will be more 

willing to pay increased rates if they understand 

the increased public benefits that will result. 

• Incorporating value-added services into 

revenue generation structures. Most water 

systems still rely solely on volumetric pricing to 

generate revenues. When the economy softens or 

droughts persist, this business model puts systems 

at financial risk. In good times, volumetric pricing 

also encourages water systems to invest more 

in hard infrastructure to deliver more water than 

in tools to manage demand for water. By linking 

revenue to the value-added services, the rates 

will be based on an array of services provided 

and better align the system costs with the values 

customers are willing to pay for. 

• Improving performance data. Both investors 

and water managers need better information to 

drive improved performance in the water sector. 

Capturing performance data and measuring against 

industry benchmarks (e.g., “non-revenue” water 

from leaks) would create a competitive environment 

critical to improving performance. Increased 

data transparency helps internal management 

decisions, public understanding of costs, and 

investor evaluation of risk, which should be a key 

driver for this data. Overall, better data would help 

encourage the hard questions while also providing 

better answers. 

• Changing the utility business model to be 

more resilient to the emerging business 

environment. Historically, water utilities have 

functioned as monopolies with no competition 

in delivering water 

resources or treating 

wastewater. Additionally, 

in many places drinking 

water providers have 

been distinct from 

stormwater and 

wastewater treatment 

providers. But utilities’ 

business environment 

is changing. Emerging 

technologies like 

closed-loop water 

designs can enable 

buildings, city blocks, 

and neighborhoods 

to be completely 

“off the grid.” In the 

coming decades, those 

technologies may 

undermine the monopolistic structure of the sector 

and force utilities to approach their mission as 

service providers instead of movers of water. 

21

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Managing sustainable 

water systems

Managing for sustainability requires 

a more flexible, forward-thinking and 

integrated approach that considers 

the following factors: 

• Adaptability

• Watershed scale

• Integration of natural systems

• Decentralized infrastructure

• Integration of drinking, waste and 

stormwater as “one water”

• Resource efficiency

• Multiple benefits across sectors

• Full life cycle management and 

pricing

• Asset management

• Good governance
• Consolidating systems to achieve better 

economies of scale, better economies of 

scope, and improved system management.

Increased pressures on water quantity and quality, 

existing utility debt burdens, and significant capital 

costs for replacing aging systems may create 

greater efficiencies by consolidating water systems 

that can take the form of consolidating among 

multiple water utilities. Consolidation can also take 

place in a single service area by pursuing “one 

water” integration of drinking water, stormwater, 

wastewater, and flood control needs. In that 

environment, utilities that expand their mission 

to focus beyond drinking water and sewage 

services to watershed stewards can find new 

cost efficiencies and discover even higher-quality 

service by connecting with the range of values that 

water systems (built and natural) provide to the 

community. Integration of water utility services may 

also be a more stable business model in light of 

disruptive technologies on the horizon.

Innovative financing strategies

Transforming our water systems will require new 

financing tools. Participants identified several 

areas for focusing attention on developing more 

transferrable models. 

1. Expanding the pool 

of water service funding 

a. Water systems are more than pipes and 

treatment plants. In many places, water utilities 

are partnering with other city agencies to 

coordinate infrastructure plans, recognizing that 

roads, green spaces and buildings are all critical 

to effective water management. This more 

expansive definition of water systems expands 

the funding pool. For example, permeable 

roadways and alleys laid by departments of 

transportation reduce stormwater runoff and 

help stormwater agencies comply with water 

quality standards. 

b. Industrial customers can also be partners in 

financing system improvements. For example, 

Chevron Energy and multiple California utilities, 

including East Bay Municipal Utility District, 

supported the financing of wastewater treatment 

system upgrades and developed innovative 

water re-use systems to reduce the load on the 

local wastewater service providers. 

c. For many systems, water treatment and delivery 

is their sole source of revenues. Yet water 

and wastewater carry embedded energy and 

nutrients that can be new sources of revenue 

generation for water utilities. Developing systems 

to enable waste or energy recovery can give 

water utilities more diverse revenue sources. 

2. Accounting and paying for 

ecosystem services

a. Ecosystems provide clean drinking water, often 

at a fraction of the cost of built infrastructure. 

Yet today those ecosystem benefits are not 

valued on utility balance sheets or reflected 

on income statements. The accurate valuation 

of the services those systems provide was 

recognized by participants as a “game-changer.”

b. Watershed ecosystems provide highly costeffective storage, filtration, and temperature 

regulation, and some utilities are considering 

how to account for ecosystem services to 

increase their balance sheet assets as a tool for 

expanding debt capacity to take on other capital 

improvements. 

c. Watershed services are often physically 

separated from the communities that benefit 

most. Payment for watershed services is a 

growing area of interest to link payments from 

downstream beneficiaries to support natural 

ecosystem protection and restoration throughout 

a watershed. These approaches can cost 

magnitudes less than treatment plants and new 

supply development. 

22

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure
3. Implementing distributed water services

a. On-site stormwater management through “green 

infrastructure” and “low-impact development” 

designs is growing rapidly in the United States. 

Cities now realize that it’s cheaper to capture 

and manage water where it falls than to pay 

billions to build large underground sewer tunnels 

to handle increasing runoff, and green roofs, 

rain gardens, and street trees also provide many 

other community benefits. Some developers 

are also integrating non-potable rainwater and 

on-site treated wastewater for building cooling, 

toilet-flushing, and irrigation. This represents 

a significant shift from centralized, publiclycontrolled water management and offers both 

challenges and opportunities for financing. 

b. At the same time, stormwater fees (e.g. based 

on total imperviousness area of individual 

properties) and credits for holding more 

stormwater onsite are opening up opportunities 

for private investment. In many cities, businesses 

that install green infrastructure are rapidly 

expanding, creating more need for capital. 

Developing securities to aggregate customerfinanced projects—for example, removal of 

impervious surfaces–is a present-day challenge 

whose solution could lead to a secondary 

market for investments that provide a clear 

public value.

c. Similar private investments could also be 

developed for water efficiency retrofits and 

installation of closed loop water systems at 

the building and even neighborhood scale. 

Utilities have traditionally seen these as a 

threat to revenues, but these strategies can 

also be a powerful tool for sustainable system 

management. 

23

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure
Steps for Creating Change

While significant improvements can be made within 

existing institutions, transformative change will 

require intentional steps and practical tools that can 

be shared and transferred. The group identified a 

range of specific actions and tools that could help to 

advance change:

Building support among ratepayers 

and regulators to support financially 

viable systems

• Develop marketing tools for water providers to 

show the true value of water for their regulators 

and customers. 

• Frame for elected officials and regulators what 

the “disruptive technology” future looks like and 

how business models, rate-setting, and financial 

strategies must change accordingly.

• Develop materials to help water utilities educate 

their public utilities commissions (PUCs) and 

city councils on full cost pricing and rate setting 

structures for sustainable water systems. 

• Develop a primer for utilities to help them to learn 

more about how their customers value different 

water services so that utilities can develop new 

service models and market their services in a more 

targeted way. 

Improving performance data

• Create a rating scale that offers a consistent 

standard for sustainability as it is applied to water 

utilities (similar to the LEED standard applied to 

buildings). Consider third-party accreditation to 

ensure credibility and accountability. 

• Give credit rating agencies guidance on the right 

questions to ask utilities that drive toward financial, 

management, and water system sustainability.

• Recruit a group of leadership utilities to model 

“platinum” financial disclosure/reporting. 

• Develop standard methods and metrics to value 

natural capital and triple bottom line benefits and 

to guide how to incorporate them into accounting 

systems.

Changing the utility business model 

to be more resilient to the emerging 

business environment

• Put forward a vision for “the 21st Century Water 

Utility” and promote this as the new standard for 

the industry.

• Present a methodology for utilities to undertake 

risk-based scenario planning for demand 

forecasting. 

• Work with academic institutions, especially 

engineering schools, to align curriculum with latest 

sustainability practices.

Consolidating systems to achieve 

better economies of scale and system 

management

• Develop tools for co-managing, co-budgeting, and 

planning among water systems for “one water” 

integration.

• Convene regulatory agencies to examine ways that 

policy can help to remove impediments to “one 

water” management, full-cost pricing, etc., and 

better align regulatory tools. 

24

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure
25

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Expanding the pool of water 

service funding

• Encourage a range of partnerships including publicprivate alternatives to address case-specific needs.

• Convene financial players engaged in distributed 

energy generation or energy efficiency finance to 

assess market/product potential for similar projects 

in the water sector.

Accounting and paying for 

ecosystem services

• Convene a group of utilities, practitioners, and 

academics to look at methodologies for valuing 

natural capital and implementing projects. 

• Engage FASB (Financial Accounting Standards 

Board) and GASB (Government Accounting 

Standards Board) in the discussion of accounting 

practices and a process for putting natural capital 

assets onto utility balance sheets.

• Build off of existing demonstration projects by 

creating and supporting additional pilot ecosystem 

services payments systems that capture and 

compensate for a broader suite of ecosystem 

services benefits such as downstream flood 

protection, water storage upstream, water quality 

improvements, etc. 

Participants also recognized the need to share 

success stories across the sector to enable 

transformative change. In particular, sharing 

experiences and successful innovations through 

publications and other communication materials was 

seen as an important role for trade associations and 

NGOs.
26

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Gary Breaux, Assistant General 

Manager and CFO, Metropolitan Water 

District of Southern California

Transfer the use of PPP to develop recycling 

projects and waste-to-energy projects, and the 

use of Joint Power Authority (JPA) structures to 

manage watersheds, develop water supplies and 

implement recycling projects. Share these learning 

with other organizations such as the Association of 

California Water Agencies (ACWA).

Lynn Broaddus, Environment Program 

Director, The Johnson Foundation 

at Wingspread

Work to disseminate the results of this conference 

and to convene subsequent meetings to further 

the recommendations in this report.

Helen Cregger, Senior Vice President, 

Public Finance Investment Banking, 

Piper Jaffray & Co. 

Encourage best practices in full cost pricing, 

capital planning and debt financing.

Chuck Clarke, Chief Executive Officer, 

Cascade Water Alliance

Work on developing the financial tools to 

determine ways to bring “alternative assets” on to 

the books of water companies.

Chris Crockett, Deputy Commissioner, 

Philadelphia Water Department

Planning and Environmental Services 

Division

Work on issues related to stormwater marketing, 

the development of a LEED/WEED program 

and new financial disclosure metrics. I will also 

explore integrating the “one water” approach into 

academic curricula.

Janet Clements, Senior Economist, 

Stratus Consulting

Use triple bottom line and ecosystem services 

expertise to train others on how to integrate into 

utility/organization management, and contribute to 

efforts to explore valuing non-traditional assets.

Martha Davis, Executive Manager for 

Policy Development, Inland Empire 

Utilities Agency

Take the discussion from this convening and use 

it to help inform the development of the 2013 

California Water Plan Update and the development 

of the southern California 5 County Regional 

Stormwater Initiative and initiate a 

water-wastewater-renewable energy initiative.

Commitments 

Each of the participants demonstrated their commitment to advancing solutions to the most pressing issues 

brought forth in the conference by committing to specific actions.

Disque Deane, Jr., Co-Founder and 

Chief Investment Officer, Water Asset 

Management, LLC

Determine ways to use WAM’s access to capital to 

develop alternative water markets.
27

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Michael Deane, Executive Director, 

National Association of Water 

Companies

Work with the American Water Works Association 

to investigate the feasibility and benefit of the 

development of a LEED/WEEDs protocol for the 

water industry.

Patty Healy, First Vice President, 

Bayern LB

Make final report available to municipal bond 

analyst community through national and local 

industry functions. Provide auxiliary support to 

peers’ work on issues discussed at convening 

with GASB. Connect with banks regarding 

energy sustainability financing ideas that may be 

applicable to the water industry.

Bill Holman, Director of State Policy, 

Nicholas Institute for Environmental 

Policy Solutions, Duke University

Assist by matching knowledge resources to 

discern barriers and opportunities for “one water” 

integration with special attention focused to the 

regulatory agencies (PUCs).

Kirsty Jenkinson, Director, Markets 

and Enterprise Program, World 

Resources Institute

Continue to participate in sustainable water 

financing discussions with The Johnson 

Foundation, American Rivers, Ceres and other 

parties, and connect those discussions with WRI’s 

work on global and U.S. water risk.

David LaFrance, Executive Director, 

American Water Works Association

Work with the National Association of Water 

Companies to investigate the feasibility and 

benefit of the development of a LEED/WEEDs 

protocol for the water industry.

Harriet Festing, Director of Natural 

Resources, Center for Neighborhood 

Technologies

Develop national partnerships with some of the 

participants involved in the dialogue in order to 

further specific initiatives. Test the concept of a 

LEED/WEED program in Illinois.

Emily Gordon, Senior Associate, 

State and Local Initiatives,

Green For All

Produce national report exploring the number and 

types of jobs that would be created by a significant 

investment in our stormwater infrastructure.

Disseminate report broadly and assist with the 

development of strategies to help deepen public 

understanding of the job and economic impact of 

investing in our water infrastructure.

Ed Harrington, General Manager, San 

Francisco Public Utilities Commission

Work with water utility and other interested parties 

to further the discussion of Natural Resources 

Accounting—that is having the value of natural 

capital put into governmental financial reporting.

The initial focus will be discussions with the 

Governmental Accounting Standards Board and 

expanding the knowledge of the issue through the 

Government Finance Officers Association.
28

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Sharlene Leurig, Senior Manager, 

Insurance Program, Ceres

Help utilities to engage GASB/FASB on natural 

asset valuation and to develop a leadership 

standard for performance-based disclosure in 

bond financing. Continue to engage municipal 

bond investors and credit rating agencies on credit 

factors related to sustainable water management.

David Rankin, Vice President and 

Director of Programs, Great Lakes 

Protection Fund

Use the results of this convening to help shape 

Protection Fund programming. I will share these 

results with our project teams working in this 

space, interested applicants, funders and other 

key audiences working on freshwater issues. The 

Fund is particularly interested in testing innovative 

models for what water utilities will become.

Adam Rix, Managing Partner,

TurningPoint Capital Partners, LLC

I will contact my political network and inform civic 

leaders of the outcomes from this convening.

Additionally, I plan to educate utilities on the value 

of skunk working and will encourage corporations 

and corporate investors to bolster the evolution of 

the water infrastructure network.

Eric Sandler, Director of Finance/ 

Treasurer, San Diego County 

Water Authority

Work with utility finance officers and other 

relevant stakeholders regarding the valuation 

and recognition of ecosystem assets. Knowledge 

transfer regarding best practices for the 

deployment of private capital to develop public 

water infrastructure--specifically with respect to 

a fair and efficient allocation of risk and return.

Work with interested parties to better characterize 

potentially disruptive developments to the existing 

landscape of public water utility management in 

the U.S.

Peter Malik, Director, Center for 

Market Innovation, Natural Resources 

Defense Council

Promote the Philadelphia example of stormwater 

pricing and management by blogging, writing a 

piece for Environmental Finance, and through 

additional speaking and writing engagements.

Scott Miller, Environmental 

Sustainability Manager, The Russell 

Family Foundation

Act as conveyor of intelligence gained from the 

Johnson Foundation proceedings and to other 

water funders and help them discuss next steps.

Betsy Otto, Vice President, 

Conservation and Strategic 

Partnership, American Rivers

Help convene a meeting on valuing and 

accounting for the myriad water benefits and 

services provided by natural ecosystems.

Provide support to EPA for including smart 

financing strategies in updated stormwater 

regulations. Continue to work with The Johnson 

Foundation, Ceres, and groups represented at the 

Wingspread conference to advance some of the 

most promising ideas and strategies discussed 

for driving toward more sustainable water 

infrastructure management.
29

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

The following background and concept document and excerpts from the materials below 

were circulated to the group in preparation for the convening: 

Regional Plan Association. America 2050: An Infrastructure Vision for 21st Century America.

2008. http://www.america2050.org/AM2050Infra08sm.pdf

Bolger, R., D. Monsma, R. Nelson. Sustainable Water Systems: Step One—Redefining the Nation’s 

Infrastructure Challenge. A report of the Aspen Institute’s Dialogue on Sustainable Water 

Infrastructure in the U.S. May, 2009. http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/docs/

pubs/water_infra_final.pdf

Additionally, the following optional readings are also available for further background.

Water Environment Research Federation—New Paradigm for Water 

http://www.westcas.org/PDF/A_New_Paradigm_for_Sustainable_Water_Infrastructure.pdf

Baltimore Charter for Sustainable Water Management (2007) 

http://sustainablewaterforum.org/baltimore.html

Sustainable Infrastructure Management by Dr. Valerie Nelson, 

Coalition for Alternative Wastewater Treatment 

http://sustainablewaterforum.org/new/white4.pdf

Charting New Waters

www.johnsonfdn.org/chartingnewwaters

Fitch Ratings Revenue Special Report—2011 Water and Wastewater Medians 

http://www.stlmsd.com/aboutmsd/organization/rateproposal/Exhibit-MSD-67H-FitchWaterWastewater-Medians-2011.pdf

National Federation of Municipal Analysts Recommended Best Practices 

in Disclosure for Water and Sewer Transactions

http://data.memberclicks.com/site/nfma/DG.BP.rbp_water_sewer.doc.pdf

Attachment A: Background Materials
30

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Convening on Financing Sustainable 

Water Infrastructure Systems 

July – August, 2011

Purpose:

The Johnson Foundation, in collaboration with American Rivers and Ceres, will convene a group of 

experts at Wingspread to discuss ways to leverage public funding and incentives as well as private 

financing to drive innovation for more sustainable and integrated management of water resources in 

the United States.

Background:

As the nation’s water infrastructure crumbles and populations grow beyond the capacity of existing 

systems, we will need to deploy hundreds of billions of dollars to repair and expand drinking 

water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure. Local governments currently fund 98 percent of 

all water and wastewater infrastructure and will rely on the capital markets to finance this critical 

infrastructure. Yet, as the debt capacity of cities and utilities declines, we will need to adapt our 

mechanisms for assessing the financial resilience of water systems and deploy financing vehicles 

that will bring new resources to the development of reliable systems. As capital markets are buffeted 

by global economic and debt concerns, private financing may be constrained and increasingly 

expensive. 

This is not simply a funding crisis, however. As with transportation and energy, the nation is at 

a critical juncture. We can either transition toward cost-effective, resilient, and environmentally 

sustainable solutions or continue to sink investment in expensive, inflexible “siloed” water systems. 

In other words, money for water infrastructure will be tight and what we spend it on will be more 

important than ever. 

Achieving more sustainable water systems in this century means reconsidering the designs we’ve 

been using for the past 200 years. Ironically, a more sustainable approach means reinvesting in our 

beleaguered natural infrastructure systems, whose damage and disrepair puts added strain on our 

built infrastructure. We will need to restore damaged watersheds and boost the stock of urban green 

spaces and green infrastructure that can serve as primary water supply and treatment and help 

traditional gray infrastructure—dams, canals, pipes and treatment plants—perform optimally. Similarly, 

we must capitalize on what more cities are learning, that restored floodplains offer far cheaper flood 

storage and risk management.

Attachment B: Concept & Background
31

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

The price we pay for water should reflect full life cycle infrastructure costs, the increasing marginal 

cost of new supplies, and the way we account for the costs of our water infrastructure must 

internalize rising energy costs. Finally, we must maximize the supply we gain from conservation, 

efficiency and integrated water system designs to minimize the financial burden of new water storage 

and diversion projects. 

The shift toward a more sustainable and economically viable future will not be driven primarily by 

legal mandates, but by thousands of local infrastructure investment decisions. If we are to build that 

sustainable future, utilities building more resilient systems must be able to differentiate themselves in 

the capital markets, and investors must price-in and reward resilience. We can rise to this enormous 

challenge because this vision is in the mutual interest of utilities, cities, water users, investors and 

the environment. 

At Wingspread, our goal will be to explore and begin to chart the pathways toward markets and 

innovative funding mechanisms that support and enable sustainable water systems. Admittedly, this 

is an enormous topic with many complex elements—accounting for ecosystem services, pricing for 

the true cost and value of water, and the interplay of municipal services with private capital markets—

and we will work to focus our discussion on the most promising and urgent opportunities. These 

issues were highlighted frequently during the yearlong discussion that culminated in The Johnson 

Foundation’s “Charting New Waters” report, and the Foundation is committed to continuing to move 

the dialogue forward. 

The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread approaches issues without preconceived ideas or fixed 

agendas. A distinctive feature of the Foundation’s convening model is that it promotes candid, yet 

collegial, conversation among those with divergent ideas and perspectives. This model fosters the 

trust and collaboration needed for innovative solutions that can also be broadly supported.

A three-step process format

To address the issues proposed, we have designed three elements of a facilitated dialogue process. 

Two webinars will be held in advance of the meeting to balance convenience with the value of faceto-face conversation. The events are scheduled for summer 2011 as follows:

• Webinar 1, July 26, 2011

• Webinar 2, August 10, 2011

• In-person convening at The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread, Racine, Wisconsin, 

August 16–18, 2011

Participants are asked to commit to all three companion events. The conversations will be 

progressive—designed to build off of one another and the information previously presented. 
32

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Guiding questions:

We seek to address this question during the course of this convening:

How can we drive funding toward the new infrastructure we need in the 21st Century? There are 

two key elements to this question:

• What new financing techniques can communities use to pay for integrated and sustainable 

infrastructure approaches?

• How can we direct private capital toward the right kinds of water management projects?

Outcomes

As a result of the series of events, we anticipate the following outcomes:

1. Create the opportunity for a diverse range of financial and policy experts to share expertise, 

familiarizing each other with respective issues and concerns, build understanding of diverse 

perspectives and build partnerships.

2. Explore sustainable water infrastructure financing alternatives.

3. Identify priority issues and possible solutions. Understand the range of perspectives and identify 

where common ground, divergent views and strong agreement exist.

4. Catalyze action for future efforts by identifying leadership organizations and larger groups 

dedicated to ongoing coordination and cooperation.

5. Agree on whether there is value in creating a body for ongoing policy coordination and 

cooperation.

Key stakeholders

We are targeting a diverse range of perspectives for this conversation with a target toward 

individuals and organizations that are in a position to design and affect change, including the 

following groups:

• Investors—pension funds and advisors, sociallyresponsible and faith-based investors, retail 

funds, private equity

• Public policy groups 

• Experts on sustainable water

• Experts on water infrastructure financing 

• Municipal utilities

• Investor-owned utilities

• Utility regulators

• Financial advisors

• Credit rating agencies and assurance providers
33

 Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Day 1: August 16, 2011

12:00 p.m. 

Buffet Luncheon

3:30 p.m. 

Gathering and Orientation to Accommodations

Wendy S. Butler, Special Initiatives Coordinator

The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread

4:00 p.m. Plenary Session

Welcome to The Johnson Foundation at 

Wingspread 

Lynn E. Broaddus, Director, Environment Programs

The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread

Participant Introductions

4:45 p.m. 

Agenda Review, Goals and Groundrules

Molly Mayo, Facilitator, Meridian Institute

4:50 p.m. Opening Presentation

Reframing the Water Infrastructure Issue 

and Its Financing Dimensions

Betsy Otto, Vice President, Conservation and Strategic 

Partnerships, American Rivers

Sharlene Leurig, Senior Manager, Insurance Program, 

Ceres

Kick-off and overview proposed goals and outcomes 

for our time together. Frame our priority challenges 

and opportunities.

5:40 p.m. Plenary Discussion 

Group discussion of the sustainable infrastructure 

issue and its financing dimensions.

Outcomes: refine assumptions and definitions, 

identify priorities for discussion.

6:45 p.m. Day 1 Wrap-up

Discussion of priorities for Day 2

6:50 p.m. Hospitality

7:15 p.m. Dinner 

8:30 p.m. Evening Hospitality

Day 2: August 17, 2011

Breakfast will be available from 6:30 a.m. to 8:15 a.m.

in the Living Room of the Guest House.

8:30 a.m. Plenary Session

Welcome and Agenda Review 

Facilitator

8:40 a.m. Reflections on Day 1 

8:50 a.m. Presentations

Case Studies on Financing Sustainable 

Water Infrastructure 

What new mechanisms are water systems employing 

to finance resilient water infrastructure?

• Financing Stormwater Controls 

Chris Crockett, Deputy Commissioner, Planning and 

Environmental Services Division, Philadelphia Water 

Department and Peter Malik, Director, Center for 

Market Innovation, NRDC

• Incentive Ratemaking for Investor-Owned 

Utilities 

Matt Diserio, Co-Founder and President of Water 

Asset Management (possible joint presentation with 

John Bohn, Former Commissioner, California Public 

Utilities Commission)

• Discuss additional innovative case examples

10:15 a.m. Break

10:30 a.m. Plenary Discussion 

Discuss lessons from case studies. Identify small 

group topics to dig into options for directing capital to 

“good” infrastructure investments. 

Outcomes: identify priority obstacles and 

opportunities that we want to explore further. Agree 

on breakout group topics. 

11:15 a.m. Introduce Breakout Session

Clarify guidance and desired outcomes for breakouts. 

Break and move to small group discussions.

Attachment C: Wingspread Meeting Program
34

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

11:30 a.m. 

Small Group discussions to 

identify obstacles & opportunities 

12:30 p.m. Small Groups break for Luncheon 

1:15 p.m. Continue Small Group discussions

2:15 p.m. 

Presentations: Reports from Small Groups

3:15 p.m. Break

3:30 p.m. Plenary Discussion

Open discussion of opportunities identified in 

breakout groups.

5:30 p.m. 

Day 2 Wrap-up and planning for Day 3 Agenda

6:00 p.m. Leisure

6:30 p.m. 

Hospitality and Tour of Wingspread (optional)

7:00 p.m. Cookout

8:30 p.m. Evening Hospitality

Day 3: August 18, 2011

Breakfast will be available from 6:30 a.m. to 8:15 a.m.

in the Living Room of the Guest House.

8:30 a.m. Plenary Session

Welcome, Agenda Review & Reflections on Day 2

Facilitator

9:00 a.m. Plenary Discussion

Identify the range of opinions in the group about what 

is needed to catalyze change. How can the ideas 

of this group help to inform other efforts? Discuss 

how to best leverage the ideas and resources of the 

group to create momentum toward more sustainable 

infrastructure investments. 

10:30 a.m. Break

10:45 a.m. Plenary Discussion

Who are the key players and partnerships needed for 

leadership and action?

11:30 a.m. Plenary Discussion

Commitments and Next Steps

12:00 p.m. Wrap-up 

12:30 p.m. Luncheon 
35

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

John Bohn

Former Commissioner

California Public Utilities Commission

220 Montgomery St., Penthouse 10

San Francisco, CA 94109 

914-671-8475

jbohn@globalnetpartners.com

Gary Breaux

Director of Finance

East Bay Municipal Utility District

375 Eleventh St.

Oakland, CA 94607 

925-708-4430

gbreaux@ebmud.com

www.ebmud.com

Chuck Clarke

Chief Executive Officer

Cascade Water Alliance

Suite 440

11400 SE 8th St.

Bellevue, WA 98004 

425-453-1555

cclarke@cascadewater.org

www.cascadewater.org

Janet Clements

Senior Economist

Stratus Consulting

1881 Ninth St., Suite 201

Boulder, CO 80521 

303-381-8000

jclements@stratusconsulting.com

www.stratusconsulting.com

Helen Cregger

Senior Vice President

Public Finance Investment Banking

Piper Jaffray & Co.

1200 17th St., Suite 1250

Denver, CO 80202 

303-820-5856

helen.x.cregger@pjc.com

www.piperjaffray.com

Chris Crockett

Deputy Commissioner

Planning & Environmental Services Division

Philadelphia Water Department

1101 Market St.

Philadelphia, PA 19107 

215-520-5058

Chris.Crockett@phila.gov

Martha Davis

Executive Manager for Policy Development

Inland Empire Utilities Agency

6075 Kimball Ave.

Chino, CA 91708 

mdavis@ieua.org

www.ieua.org

Disque D. Deane, Jr. 

Co-Founder and Chief Investment Officer

Water Asset Management, LLC

509 Madison Ave., Suite 804

New York, NY 10022 

212-754-5132

d.deane@waterinv.com

www.waterinv.com

Michael Deane

Executive Director

National Association of Water Companies

Suite 850

2001 L St., NW

Washington, DC 20036 

202-669-0641

michael@nawc.com

www.nawc.org

Matthew J. Diserio

Co-Founder and President

Water Asset Management, LLC

Suite 804

509 Madison Ave.

New York, NY 10022 

212-754-5132

m.diserio@waterinv.com

www.waterinv.com

Attachment D: Meeting Participants
36

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Harriet Festing

Director of Natural Resources

Center for Neighborhood Technologies

2125 W. North Ave.

Chicago, IL 60647 

773-269-4042

hfesting@cnt.org

Emily Gordon

Senior Associate, State and Local Initiatives

Green For All

Suite 600

1611 Telegraph Ave.

Oakland, CA 94612 

510-271-9822

emily@greenforall.org

www.greenforall.org

Ed Harrington

General Manager

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

1155 Market St., 11th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94103 

eharrington@sfwater.org

Patty Healy

First Vice President

Bayern LB

560 Lexington Ave.

New York, NY 10022 

917-843-6178

phealy@bayernlbny.com

www.bayernlb.com

Bill Holman

Director of State Policy

Nicholas Institute for 

Environmental Policy Solutions

Duke University

Box 90335

Durham, NC 27708 

bill.holman@duke.edu

Kirsty Jenkinson

Director, Markets and Enterprise Program

World Resources Institute

10 G St., NE

Washington, DC 20002 

202-729-7748

kjenkinson@wri.org

www.wri.org

David LaFrance

Executive Director

American Water Works Association

6666 Quincy Ave.

Denver, CO 80235 

dlafrance@awwa.org

Peter Malik

Director, Center for Market Innovation

Natural Resources Defense Council

40 W. 20th St.

New York, NY 10011 

212-727-2700

pmalik@nrdc.org

Richard Metcalf

Director, Corporate Affairs

Laborers’ International Union of North America 

(LiUNA)

905 16th St., NW

Washington, DC 20006 

202-942-2249

rmetcalf@liuna.org

www.liuna.org

Scott Miller

Environmental Sustainability Manager

The Russell Family Foundation

PO Box 2567

Gig Harbor, WA 98335 

scott@trff.org

David Rankin

Vice President and Director of Programs

Great Lakes Protection Fund

Suite 880

1560 Sherman Ave.

Evanston, IL 60201 

847-425-8196

drankin@glpf.org

Adam Rix

Managing Partner

TurningPoint Capital Partners, LLC

Suite 113

1053 Grand Ave.

St. Paul, MN 55105 

651-600-3477

arix@turncappartners.com

www.turncappartners.com
37

Convening Report Financing Sustainable Water Infrastructure

Eric Sandler

Director of Finance/Treasurer

San Diego County Water Authority

4677 Overland Ave.

San Diego, CA 92123 

858-522-6671

ESandler@sdcwa.org

www.sdcwa.org

Doug Scott

Managing Director, U.S. Public Finance Group

Fitch Ratings

Suite 2010

111 Congress Ave.

Austin, TX 78701 

512-215-3725

douglas.scott@fitchratings.com

www.fitchratings.com

Facilitator

Molly Mayo

Senior Mediator

Meridian Institute

PO Box 773

Talkeetna, AK 99676 

907-733-8340

mmayo@merid.org

www.merid.org

Planning Partners

Fay Augustyn

Conservation Associate

American Rivers

Suite 1400

1101 – 14th St. NW

Washington, DC 20005 

faugustyn@americanrivers.org

David Gordon

Policy Associate

Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy 

Solutions, Duke University

P.O. Box 90335

Durham, NC 27708 

973-801-9654

david.r.gordon@duke.edu

www.nicholasinstitute.duke.edu

Sharlene Leurig

Senior Manager, Insurance Program

Ceres

99 Chauncy St.

Boston, MA 02111 

617-247-0700

leurig@ceres.org

Betsy Otto

Vice President, Conservation and 

Strategic Partnerships

American Rivers

Suite 1400

1101 – 14th St., NW

Washington, DC 20005 

202-243-7033

botto@americanrivers.org

www.americanrivers.org

The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread 

Roger C. Dower

President

The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread

33 E. Four Mile Rd.

Racine, WI 53402 

262-681-3331

rdower@johnsonfdn.org

www.johnsonfdn.org

Lynn Broaddus

Director, Environment Programs

The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread

33 E. Four Mile Rd.

Racine, WI 53402 

262-681-3344

lbroaddus@johnsonfdn.org

www.johnsonfdn.org

Wendy Butler

Special Initiatives Coordinator

The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread

33 E. Four Mile Rd.

Racine, WI 53402 

262-681-3321

wbutler@johnsonfdn.org

www.johnsonfdn.org

About The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread

The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread, based in Racine, Wisconsin, is dedicated to serving 

as a catalyst for change by bringing together leading thinkers and inspiring new solutions on 

major environmental and regional issues. Over the course of 50 years, The Johnson Foundation 

at Wingspread has inspired consensus and action on a range of public policy issues. Several 

organizations have roots at Wingspread, including the National Endowment for the Arts, 

National Public Radio, the International Criminal Court and the Presidential Climate Action 

Plan. Building on this legacy, The Johnson Foundation at 

Wingspread has set a new, strategic mission designed 

to achieve greater, more sustained impact on critical 

environmental issues. Launched as part of this new direction 

is Charting New Waters, an alliance of leading organizations 

calling for action to avert the looming 

U.S. freshwater crisis.
www.johnsonfdn.org/chartingnewwaters