In the spirit of measuring what we care about, the UN Sustainable Develop- ment Goals (SDGs) provide guidelines to measure \universal and equitable access to safe and a ordable drinking water for all." In this work, I show where permanent or semi-permanent, autonomous or semi-autonomous tech- nologies (objects, not processes) can measure and induce progress toward those goals and where they cannot. To do this, I apply the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework to each of the seven normative de - nitions from the SDGs as \action arenas." For each normative de nition, I examine if technologies exist or can be created to e ect a positive outcome for consumers in that particular action arena using nine evaluative criteria. This analysis is applied to the United States as a case study considering its phys- ical systems, regulations, and governance structures. This work, combined with e orts to translate the United States' systems and structures, can lead to multinational applicability. This paper examines how and when a water smart grid can and cannot be used e ectively. I conclude that the material artifacts of a water smart grid can advance the SDG of safety and a ordabil- ity. However, technology alone cannot assign people to jurisdictions, limiting its ability to advance goals of universal and equitable access. Keywords: Water Smart Grid, UN Sustainable Development Goals, Sensor Technology Corresponding author Email address: A.Jones@Northeastern.edu (A-A D. Jones, III ) Preprint submitted to Environmental Science & Policy September 4, 2019 1. Introduction 1 A human right is an essential thing that needs to be protected and guar- 2 anteed, though not necessarily provided, by the state [1]. If our global society 3 ambitions are re ected by the actions of the United Nations, we have declared 4 water a human right [2]. In other words, we care about water. We should 5 measure what we care about to induce positive outcomes [3]. In the spirit 6 of caring about human rights, the United Nations has put forth Millennium 7 and Sustainable Development Goals (MDGs and SDGs) providing guidelines 8 to measure \universal and equitable access to safe and a ordable drinking 9 water for all."[4] While 147 countries achieved the MDG for drinking water, 10 the SDGs are designed to set goals for human rights in all countries [5]. SDGs 11 address problems of providing safe drinking water at a global scale, applica- 12 ble in the cases of water issues in Flint, Michigan in the United States and 13 around the world [6]. Thus, policy makers and providers will have to design, 14 implement, maintain, and improve water sourcing, treatment, delivery, and 15 payment speci c to every location to meet the SDGs, a particular challenge 16 in the face of changing climate and economics. During design, is it possible 17 to \measure twice and cut once" to create these systems as eciently and in 18 as timely a fashion as possible? 19 The guidelines for measuring progress toward the SDG goal for water 20 recommend using household or institutional surveys [4]. Surveys report an 21 individual's \perception of service", which can over or under estimate \per- 22 formance of service" [7, 8, 9]. Furthermore, surveys are limited in geographic 23 and chronographic scope: surveys measure where a user interacted with the 24 service at the time the survey was taken rather than overall state of the 25 service. For example, the United States Geological Services (USGS) sur- 26 vey of US water systems comes out once every 5 years and is missing data 27 from many public water suppliers in addition to data from domestic self- 28 suppliers [10]. Increasing geographic and chronographic scope is limited by 29 the cost of increasing survey frequency; labor required to take and adminster 30 surveys; costs of designing surveys; incentives and other methods of increas- 31 ing response; and by willingness of participants to respond [11]. Responses 32 to survey questions are in uenced by the membership of the surveyor, the 33 phrasing of the question, and interpretation of response [12, 13]. 34 However, surveys also assess what matters in the provision of a necessity 35 like water: fundamentally, whether a person's needs are being met. The 36 medical profession is coming to terms with the idea that the patient can 37 2 signi cantly contribute to the diagnostic process [14]. At present, water con- 38 sumers and health care providers can be aware that something is wrong in a 39 water system, in real time [15]. People and surveys may continue to have a 40 use beyond what technology can achieve. Furthermore, surveys provide room 41 for interpretation, nuance, and variability in response, which, while a tech- 42 nical challenge to interpret and compare across time, can provide valuable 43 insight to needs that may otherwise go unmet. 44 Technological solutions are alternative options or strong complements to 45 traditional surveys that increase reporting frequency, reduce manpower, re- 46 duce costs, and bypass the limitations of human observational skills and 47 willingness. Technology would be deployed in a water smart grid which is 48 proposed as a necessary solution to water shortages in the United States 49 [16]. It is hypothesized that by following the example of electrical smart 50 grids, water provision could develop similar distribution eciency. Electri- 51 cal smart grids are proposed solutions including but not limited to smart 52 meters, distributed production, sensors and controls, and machine learning 53 that can dynamically adjust electrical production and transmission to dy- 54 namically reduce stress and downtime on the grid [17]. However, there are 55 crucial di erences between water and electricity. Water is a human right 56 and faces provision requirements, regulations, and public pressures unseen 57 by electricity; water is generally not a distributed resource; and water gen- 58 erally cannot be \shut-o or shunted" for safety reasons [18]. The \smart" 59 in smart grid refers to autonomous engineered systems that provide two-way 60 information ow, allowing consumers to adjust use to costs and failures in the 61 system; for example, water meters that give hourly usage data to consumers 62 and providers, instead of monthly meter reading by a human. Furthermore, 63 it refers to systems that can learn, adjust, and alert; for example, suites of 64 pressure and ow sensors that can determine when heavy ow is a leak and 65 not simply heavy use and reroute ow automatically [19]. Similar to the 66 electrical smart grid, the water smart grid is also far from being employed, 67 both due to the absence of technology and, more signi cantly, the absence of 68 appropriate eld testing environments for testing components of these critical 69 infrastructures [19, 16]. 70 For the purposes of this study, the term \technology" will be used to 71 describe permanent or semi-permanent, engineered, autonomous or semi- 72 autonomous systems. The terms permanent or semi-permanent are used to 73 distinguish devices designed to be deployed and later recovered for a study 74 period from those designed to be left in the eld until they need to be re- 75 3 placed. Autonomous and semi-autonomous are de ned as manmade devices 76 that interact with a part of their environment without the interaction of a 77 human aside from infrequent maintenance. This de nition focuses on the ma- 78 terial artifact, not the \operational sequences, verbal and non-verbal skills" 79 that make up a technique or the sociotechnical systems [20]. This de nition 80 is in line with common use and evoked imagery of the word. This will hope- 81 fully skirt confusion and misuse found even in critique of the word's use in 82 academic literature [20]. I separate the material artifact aspect of technology 83 from its institutional knowledge and behavioral aspects in order to analyze 84 the notion that \it is easier to change technology than to change behavior, 85 and it is more dicult to determine cultural acceptability than technical fea- 86 sibility" [21]. Furthermore, technology is one of the four dimensions of water 87 identi ed by the UN Centre for Human Settlements, along with administra- 88 tion, nancial, and economic management. 89 I will analyze if existing and developing technology can accurately mea- 90 sure and induce progress toward the SDGs as compared to traditional survey 91 methods. Furthermore, in this investigation I aim to determine whether 92 technology can e ectuate sustainability outcomes. The physical systems, 93 regulations, and governance structures that constrain this study are domes- 94 tic systems in the United States. The analysis, framework, and conclusions 95 may apply to a wider range of systems. 96 2. Theoretical Framework 97 I will perform a theoretical analysis using the Institutional Analysis and 98 Development Framework (Figure 1) to analyze whether existing and devel- 99 oping technology can accurately measure and induce progress toward the 100 SDGs[22]. The action arenas will cover interactions within the home, neigh- 101 borhood, local, regional, and national levels. The participants in this ac- 102 tion arena are stakeholders who move in and out of positions as consumers, 103 providers, regulators, activists, elected ocials, engineers, economists, and 104 health care providers. For example, a stakeholder can both consume and 105 provide water via a well on their land using a system they engineered them- 106 selves. The technologies are the linkages between participants and the SDG 107 of providing \universal and equitable access to safe and a ordable drinking 108 water for all." The action situations are the normative de nitions of the 109 SDG, as shown in Table 1. 110 4 Table 1: Reprinted in Entirety from SDG Methodological Note Target 6.1[4] Target language Normative de nitions of target elements 6.1 - By 2030, achieve universal Implies all exposures and settings, including households, schools, health facilities, workplaces, etc. and equitable Implies progressive reduction and elimination of inequalities between population subgroups access Implies sucient water to meet domestic needs is reliably available close to home to safe Safe drinking water is free from pathogens and el- evated levels of toxic chemicals at all times and a ordable Payment for services does not present a barrier to access or prevent people meeting other basic human needs drinking water Water used for drinking, cooking, food prepara- tion, and personal hygiene for all. Suitable for use by men, women, girls, and boys of all ages, including people living with disabilities For each normative de nition, I will examine if technologies exist or can 111 be made to e ect a positive outcome for consumers in that particular action 112 situation. Exogenous variables to this analysis include the overall existence 113 of water and climate change. These two variables are linked, since climate 114 change induces shifts in total water available at low energy cost, and as wa- 115 ter becomes less available at low energy, extraction using energy-intensive 116 means may impact human-induced climate change [23, 24]. The political- 117 economic landscape, structure of providers, and geopolitical locations of wa- 118 ter resources, are exogenous variables that I show are critical to the use of 119 technology to address the SDGs. Social norms like privacy and perceptions 120 over what information is xed or variable or hidden or explicit are considered 121 as exogenous variables that may encourage or discourage the use of technol- 122 ogy. The designation of infrastructure as a communal pool resource is an 123 exogenous variable that may provide opportunity or diculty for implemen- 124 tation of the technology to achieve the \for all" action situation of the SDGs. 125 For the United States case study, the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 126 5 PARTICIPANTSEXOGENOUS VARIABLES NET COSTS AND BENEFITS assigned toPOTENTIAL OUTCOMESConsumers, regulators, activists, elected officials, engineers , economists, healthcare providers, etcConsumers, regulators, activists, elected officials, engineers , economists, healthcare providers, etcInstitutional Analysis of the Sustainable Development Goal to provide “universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.” Demand; Set; Meet; Verify outcome; Weigh cost/benefits; Pay for performance standard. Demand; Set; Meet; Verify outcome; Weigh cost/benefits; Pay for performance standard. WATER SMART GRIDINFORMATION aboutCONTROL over Linked toFigure 1: Institutional Analysis and Development Framework as applied to the UN SDG of providing \universal and equitable access to safe and a ordable drinking water for all." and its 1986 and 1996 amendments are exogenous variables. Property and 127 water rights, in addition to the SDWA, are considered as exogenous variables 128 to this analysis. 129 For each action situation and each technology, there exists a series of 130 evaluative criteria that I will ask and assess via existing research and news 131 reports. 132 What can be done with the information gathered from a given technol- 133 ogy in the action situation? 134 Can the information present an accurate picture of the action situation? 135 Can accuracy be de ned? 136 What is the tolerance for frequency? 137 What is the tolerance for false positives or failure of the device? 138 Will action on the information gathered positively or negatively impact 139 the outcome? 140 6 Will the technology expose or obscure problems? 141 Who will bene t and who will be harmed from the use and information 142 provided from the technology? 143 Can technology be used to drive progress toward an outcome? 144 I leave a bene t-cost analysis to the end, assuming that all parts of the 145 water smart grid can be implemented and will address each action area as 146 explored. I theoretically analyze which questions can and cannot be asked 147 with technology and whether those questions will lead to or away from a 148 desired outcome, in this case the SDG for water. This analysis will assume 149 it is given that governments are ultimately responsible for guaranteeing the 150 human right to water. It will not hold in situations where neither the people 151 nor the governments are capable of seeking redress and reform through proce- 152 dural accountability [25]. Systems that gather and distribute information to 153 all levels, command and control physical resources, and monitor and prevent 154 contamination of those resources are hampered in the absence of regulators, 155 regulations, adjudicators, systems of tort, and electoral capacity to induce 156 change by one party on another [26, 27]. This analysis will not address cor- 157 ruption and explicit male cence that supplant the legal frameworks above. 158 I will not address actions of war and international disputes that move dis- 159 course of water away from local impact and control. I will not emphasize the 160 right to water for corporations or farming. While these issues are important, 161 especially in water markets, the standards for quality and quantity in corpo- 162 rate and agriculture operations are vastly di erent, sometimes necessitating 163 completely di erent systems. Lastly, the subjective nature of taste, which 164 cannot be ameliorated with technologies for monitoring or treatment, will 165 not be considered in this analysis [28]. 166 3. Universal Water 167 Universal water provision \implies [provision in] all exposures and settings 168 including households, schools, health facilities, workplaces, etc." [4]. \Uni- 169 versal" is accurately described by enumerating everyone who wants water 170 and their connection to a water supply. A connection includes both self- 171 supply and public water supply. Currently, national-level estimates of uni- 172 versal water provision in the United States are combinations of self-reported 173 sales numbers from public water suppliers, Environmental Protection Agency 174 7 PARTICIP ANTSUSER CENSUS; F ACILITY JURISDICTION Water budget, pricing peak demand, infrastruc- ture planning, utility and landlor d compliance, social service pr oxy, activty health, population proxyConsumers, r egulators, activists, elected of ficials, engineers, economists, healthcar e providers, etcConsumers, r egulators, activists, elected of ficials, engineers, economists, healthcar e providers, etc Demand service; Set consumption and payment limits , design and deploy , restrict serviceDemand service; Set consumption and payment limits , design and deploy , restrict serviceSmart water meters, well-head piezometers, flow meter on pumpsReal-time flow data to consumers, r egulators, providersShut-of f for r epair , complaince, emer- gencies Linked toWater pr ovi- sion in all ex- posur es and settingsFigure 2: Technology to measure \Universal." Meters should be designed to measure usage and automatically provide usage data and location accessibly both onsite and at centralized databases at every facility where people use drinking water for all participants [29]. (EPA) Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) information, and 175 United States Census data [10]. 176 An accurate picture of water usage and water coverage is important in 177 producing a water budget [30]. Accuracy cannot be achieved for this sit- 178 uation without a consensus of who is supposed to provide, maintain, and 179 aggregate data from these meters and for whom. Furthermore, meters would 180 not address homeless populations that do not participate in shelters and are 181 not covered by any census [31, 32, 33]. Additional technologies like public 182 showers, toilets, and water fountains, if not homes { while not part of a smart 183 grid { could then be connected to the public water systems, to address those 184 populations. Populations with private wells should be accounted for, though 185 private wells are not regulated in most states. 186 In the event consensus is reached on who covers whom, measurement 187 frequency can weight a number of factors based on the tolerance for missed 188 readings. For example, if the meter measures a cumulative volume per day, 189 it could miss times when the water is not owing at all. If the device is being 190 used to detect breaks, low pressure, excess use, or even cumulative use, hourly 191 8 measurements may miss the desired outcome. Less than daily measurements 192 may not provide the bene ts of a smart meter, because a day without water 193 can disrupt meals, employment, and hygiene. Error tolerance (e.g. , false 194 positives for leaks) is low in this area if resources are being deployed to x 195 service based on device readings or water is shut o due to device error. 196 Will action on usage and connectivity information positively or negatively 197 impact the outcome of universal water provision? This information could be 198 used to restrict activities that have a quality of life bene t only to those who 199 can a ord it. Pricing and a ordability will be addressed later (Section 7), 200 but it is worth noting that the ability of a \smart water meter" to shut o 201 water in nonpayment scenarios goes against the SDG for water. Furthermore, 202 data from smart meters has been used to distinguish how water is being used 203 by an individual household: for example, between running a washer machine 204 versus bathing. While this has implications for water pricing, it also presents 205 an unacceptable invasion of privacy for some [34]. Though more of an equity 206 issue, continuous monitoring of water for immigrants without legal status 207 may be more harmful than bene cial to these populations. Comparative 208 data leading to competition has worked for some environmental goals, yet 209 doing better than average in terms of water use can create false appearances 210 of water security. 211 Can technology drive progress toward the goal of \universal" water pro- 212 vision? In instances where jurisdictions have outdated databases, where 213 present costs of gathering data obscures future bene ts of identifying cost 214 savings, technology in the form of a smart meter can indeed drive progress 215 toward the goal of universal provision [35]. Technology can bridge the gap in 216 data missing for many public water systems in the US SDWIS. However, tech- 217 nology cannot bridge the problems of jurisdiction, property rights, privacy 218 rights, and trust without necessary regulatory frameworks and institution 219 building. 220 4. Equitable Water 221 Equitable water \implies progressive reduction and elimination of inequal- 222 ities between population subgroups," in access, safety, and a ordability of 223 water [4]. An accurate picture of \equitable" includes describing the state 224 of water provision to marginalized groups that are traditionally underserved 225 by public provision in quality, quantity, or regularity. Some of the groups 226 highlighted here will be poor living in mobile homes, Native American com- 227 9 PARTICIPANTSCENSUS OF GEOGRAPHIC REGION; PROVIDER JURISDICTION Discovery of non-compliance, highlight inadequate provision, sensor installation and maintain-ance, stress local water budgetsElimination of inequalities be- tween sub-groupsConsumers, regulators,activists, elected officials, engineers, landlords, tribal governmentsConsumers, regulators, activists, elected officials, engineers, landlords, tribal governments Demand, require, balance; set con - sumption limits, set costDemand, require, balance; set con - sumption limits, set costWatershed monitors with water quality monitors at borders; sub-metering within poor communitiesINFORMATION ABOUT: regularity of service, safety of provision, overcharging under serveringCONTROL OVER: Diver- sion of drinking water to underserved from drink- ing water uses Linked toFigure 3: Technology to measure \Equitable." Technology should be deployed to measure safety, availability, and regularity of water provision to marginalized groups. munities living on tribal land, and communities that are not supported by a 228 public water system as de ned by the SDWA. At the federal level, there are 229 no provisions within the SDWA to protect water rights for these groups other 230 than Native American communities. Communities not supported by public 231 water systems must provide their own water via wells. The Clean Water Act 232 has protections from contaminants that can o er protection for well users. 233 An accurate picture of equitable water provision would rapidly and con- 234 tinuously measure instances of water disconnection and contamination, along 235 with inadequacies in both. For example, water provision has been dicult 236 for people who live in apartments and mobile home parks where water me- 237 ters are not submetered (nor considered a public water system by the SDWA 238 [36]). Unless the legal framework is structured to ensure submetered billing, 239 billing for such residences is variable (see, for example, [37]) A systematic 240 analysis of water survey data showing that water shut-o s were higher for 241 residents of mobile home parks in 2015 was prompted by news reports of the 242 same [38]. Providing information during use to all parties is the most e ec- 243 tive way to incite behavioral change. For example, providing regular usage 244 data to an owner convinces them to install low ow meters [39]. 245 10 While US tribal lands are sovereign, they share physical connection with 246 the United States. While allocation of physical water between tribal land 247 and the United States has occurred, physical water connections are limited 248 [40]. To ensure water is transferred adequately and safely across borders, 249 monitoring frequencies need to mirror usage and recharge rates (see Section 250 5). Similar to addressing the problem of universal provision to homeless 251 populations, the transfer of existing technologies not part of the smart grid 252 to tribal land must be part of any technology suite. Any absence of this 253 transfer will lead to further inequality. This is exempli ed by legislative 254 creep of state regulations into and reduced water quality of tribal land due 255 to either an absence of tribal regulatory infrastructure { the kind the federal 256 government subsidized for the states { or courts narrow interpretation of 257 what is within the purview of a tribal government [41]. 258 As in the \universal" action scenario, water smart grid technology can- 259 not overcome many issues related to \equity" without an accurate census. 260 Unlike the \universal" action scenario, information from technology can high- 261 light jurisdictional challenges to equitable water provision. If groups are not 262 connected with the technological solution, the very absence of coverage in 263 relation to an accurate census shows that they are being underserved. How- 264 ever, investment in these technologies for high-income communities can stress 265 local budgets and further leave out low-income communities. 266 5. Access to Water 267 Access to water \implies sucient water to meet domestic needs is reliably 268 available close to home" [4]. An accurate picture of access to water includes 269 knowing water availability for a given community, by which the means the 270 community gets that water (piped or well, public or self), and the provision 271 reliability. \Universal" is distinguished from \access" noting that the focus 272 in the action arena of \universal" is on the people whereas the focus in the 273 action arena of \access" is on the resource. 274 Current methods of determining availability include piezometers utilizing 275 shut-in pressures, as well as acoustic, electrochemical, and seismic sensors. 276 Freshwater resources like groundwater aquifers can be measured using ded- 277 icated satellite data [42]. These methods are currently conducted through 278 geographically sparse site studies that are limited in temporal resolution [43]. 279 A system of technology to conduct the same studies would include making 280 robust and low-power sensors that can operate in the eld permanently and 281 11 PARTICIPANTSRiparian rights, land-use rights, census, jurisdiction Discovery of non-compliance, highlight inadequate provision, sensor installation and maintain-ance, stress local water budgetsSufficient water to meet domes- tic needs reli- ably close to homeConsumers, regulators, activists, elected officials, engineers, industry leadersConsumers, regulators, activists, elected officials, engineers, industry leaders Demand, require, balance; set con - sumption limits, set cost, establish jurisdictionsDemand, require, balance; set con - sumption limits, set cost, establish jurisdictionsPermanent, low-power, piezometers, with shut-in pressures, acoustic, electrochmical and seismic sensors dedicated satelliteINFORMATION ABOUT: water existence, water stress, water shiftsCONTROL OVER: N/A Linked toFigure 4: Technology to measure \Access." Determining access is important to developing dynamic and accurate water budgets. report readings automatically. The USGS public-supply database currently 282 gives estimates on water use at the county and state level by aggregating 283 data from public water system intakes and census data [44]. These sensors, 284 combined with smart meters on buildings and on public water system intakes, 285 make a smart grid. 286 Combining water use with water availability along with lling spatial and 287 temporal gaps in water availability and water stress models, increases water 288 security [30]. Furthermore, integrating control can prevent waste and abuse 289 of water. The data presented in real time can bring water stress above-ground 290 for users, planners, activists, economists, and engineers. For example, elected 291 ocials and economists can weigh costs and bene ts for paying landowners 292 of high-recharge lands [45]. Real-time water stress data presented to users 293 can bring water conservation e orts into the home, displaying how a home's 294 water use stresses a given aquifer. 295 However, accuracy is dicult to de ne in this action arena for a number 296 of reasons. Primarily, while the current state of water stress can be mod- 297 eled in a given area, changes in availability take time to propagate through 298 aquifers [46]. Additionally, water recharge through precipitation will change 299 12 on a monthly basis [45]. Yearly measurement will not capture seasonal vari- 300 ation. The measurement frequency of water availability can be low for the 301 aforementioned reason, though not as infrequently as the USGS ve year 302 inventory. 303 Knowing how much water is available can assist in long-term planning. 304 This can be bene cial for conservation and planning e orts. However, this 305 additional knowledge can also encourage industries that need freshwater for 306 other reasons to relocate to regions of high water availability and outspend 307 smaller users to capture that water, disrupting established patterns of water 308 use [47]. 309 How users are connected to the public water system after the water leaves 310 the treatment plant is also useful information. Engineers can use a well- 311 distributed, continuous two-way data ow network to identify leaks between 312 measurement points. This part of the water smart grid might include pressure 313 sensors and ow sensors placed at regular intervals within pipes, not simply 314 at mains connections. Furthermore, combining pressure and ow data across 315 a system with models of how the system should function can provide feed- 316 back to determine excessive usage, monitor reliability, and so on in real time. 317 Activists, elected ocials, and economists can use a system to identify in- 318 sucient provision through poorly covered regions in linked networks. This 319 information can bring to light areas of frequent failure. 320 Accuracy in water delivery can be de ned for a given jurisdiction and 321 an accurate census. An accurate map of piping networks, ow and pressure 322 pro les, loss, leaks, and total connections addresses access. These systems 323 can be monitored on a much more frequent basis than \availability" because 324 these systems are under constant use, as well as di erent stages of repair, 325 stress, and strain. The tolerance for false positives is not as high as for mea- 326 suring \availability". If data is misrepresented rarely, it is likely still better 327 than the current system, and fail-safes such as the state of ow at a water 328 treatment plant and the state of ow at someone's house are known entities. 329 The data collected from these sensors at the local level can automatically be 330 integrated into national databases. 331 Data and information uniformity can enable action at all levels. At the 332 household level, comparing anonymized usage against a neighbor's can en- 333 courage competition and suggest opportunities for savings. At the neighbor- 334 hood level, there are opportunities to compare with other neighborhoods to 335 ensure equitable service and response times to issues. Still, uniform infor- 336 mation can ignore extremes and does not provide political momentum like 337 13 single catastrophic events [48]. 338 Riparian and land-use rights can cause property owners to be wary of 339 technological monitoring by government agencies [49]. This issue can be 340 partially overcome through incentives [45]. Populations may object to re- 341 mote monitoring of private use [34]. Determining who is served by a given 342 source is a current problem that will not be solved by implementing a smart 343 grid. Additionally, when a given population exists in either an overlapping 344 or exclusionary zone, the smart grid may be dicult to implement. 345 6. Safe Water 346 \Safe drinking water is free from pathogens and elevated levels of toxic 347 chemicals at all times" [4]. An accurate portrait of safe drinking water would 348 capture the total amount of a speci c contaminant over time individuals are 349 exposed to, in accordance with age and other medical risks (see section 9). 350 This requirement is currently met in the United States by setting levels and 351 sampling frequencies at reasonably achievable levels to protect large por- 352 tions of the population [36]. Detecting bacterial contamination is currently 353 dependent on culturing the bacteria and looking for speci c indicator organ- 354 isms for treatment ecacy or source of contamination [50]. Detecting toxic 355 chemicals is currently achieved using mass spectroscopy almost exclusively in 356 laboratory settings due to capital cost of equipment and technical expertise 357 in interpreting results [51]. 358 The data gathered from these technologies can be used by a consumer to 359 decide whether to trust tap water. If two-way feedback is implemented, as 360 desired by smart grid advocates, then water utilities can provide consumers 361 with boil water orders immediately. Engineers can compare data taken from a 362 collection of neighborhood sensors to household, as well as schools or health 363 care facilities, sensors to determine if consumer-reported problems are the 364 consumers' or utilities' responsibility. Activists and elected ocials can use 365 the information to push for equity of service quality. Higher-resolution data 366 in both space and time can assist economists in studying the e ects of in- 367 vestment (or lack thereof) on water quality, and vice versa. 368 Challenges with creating an accurate portrait of safety include the regular 369 identi cation of new chemicals discovered to have toxic e ects [51]. In addi- 370 tion, technology does not exist that can individually identify most bacteria. 371 The latter is not as relevant, since our methods for disinfection are targeted 372 to eliminate the most recalcitrant bacteria, though determining viability of 373 14 PARTICIPANTSPerception of water safetyl knowledge of safety metrics Increase trust in water sources, isolate contamination promote equity, inform cost/benefit studies on infrastructure and equity in- vestment, industrial city planningDrinking water free, from pathogens and elevated levels of toxic chemi- cals at all timesConsumers, regulators,activists, elected officials, engineers, health care providersConsumers, regulators, activists, elected officials, engineers, health care providers Demand, require, balance; set con - sumption limits, set cost, establish jurisdictionsDemand, require, balance; set con - sumption limits, set cost, establish jurisdictionsFor bacteria: electrochemical sensors, binding sensors, marker detectors. For chemicals: compact mass spectroscopy, electrochemical sensorsINFORMATION ABOUT: treatment efficiency, distri- bution system healthCONTROL OVER: Boil water orders, disinfec- tion burns Linked toFigure 5: Technology to measure \safe." Compact methods for detecting bacterial and chemical contaminants are being developed [52, 53]. screened microbes would be. If these technologies can be created, there is no 374 reason to set a limit on frequency. Since water safety can be a ected intermit- 375 tently by changes in source water quality that may take time to propagate, 376 or rapidly by leaks, or knowingly by chlorine burns, sampling at higher fre- 377 quencies can only capture more data about water quality. False-negatives 378 are less tolerable in this action arena than in others because failures in safety 379 can lead to irreversible harm. 380 The data provided from biosensors can be used to impose standards from 381 outside or inside a jurisdiction that cannot be met immediately. Furthermore, 382 stringent standards may not allow for the exibility necessary to provide ad- 383 equate water during a water crises. Stringent standards can be used to evict 384 communities that cannot a ord to meet those standards and replace them 385 with those that can, thus directly working against the SDGs. In this way, 386 among others, standards can disrupt local economies [54]. Once existing 387 standards are in place, it is dicult to raise them for a number of reasons. 388 Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, safety is a moving target, and what we 389 know about how novel engineered chemicals a ect the developing or elderly 390 body is always increasing. Therefore, having technologies in place to deter- 391 15 mine and ensure safety can be used to reinforce and make those standards 392 harder to change. Having sensors can also bene t activists. It was only 393 through the collaboration of health care professionals diagnosing and regu- 394 lar testing of waters by an outside engineer that elevated lead levels were 395 exposed in Flint, Michigan [15]. 396 Overall, sensors that measure chemical and biological safety can be used 397 to drive forward the goal of safety. Even in the case of self-supplied water, 398 knowing more { in terms of total metrics and temporal and geographic fre- 399 quency { about water quality can provide bene ts to the consumer, engineer, 400 activist, elected ocial, and economist. A challenge exists when high stan- 401 dards are used to evict users from areas deemed \unsafe" in exchange for 402 users who can a ord to repair those unsafe conditions. 403 7. A ordable Water 404 A ordable water implies that \payment for services does not present a 405 barrier to access or prevent people meeting other basic human needs" [4]. An 406 accurate picture of water a ordability would involve determining how people 407 pay for water, why they may forgo paying for water, if water is the reason 408 they forgo paying for other things, and what they do when they cannot pay 409 for water. Furthermore, it involves determining if water charges are being 410 applied to meet the goals of universal, equitable, accessible, and safe access. 411 If not, are those costs being made up for in some other way? A ordability 412 may also involve challenging or changing viewpoints on how much water 413 should cost. The present situation for providing a ordable access to water 414 varies by state and service. Programs to make water a ordable in the United 415 States, for example, are established by private providers in the states of New 416 Jersey and Pennsylvania, and public utilities in California. Water pricing is 417 not enough to meet maintenance demands or encourage sustainable use [55]. 418 Feedback mechanisms on water pricing are too far removed removed to be 419 measured accurately. 420 Accuracy is dicult to de ne and achieve in the action situation of a ord- 421 ability. A ordability is also partially determined by an individual's relative 422 ability to prioritize paying for water as opposed to other household costs. Dif- 423 culties exist in determining a ordability with state-of-the-art willingness to 424 pay surveys and studies [56]. Additionally, it is beyond the scope of this pa- 425 per to discuss how people perceive paying for water. However, technology as 426 a linkage can increase survey geographic scope and frequency by placing sur- 427 16 veys at the point of use. Furthermore, real-time usage versus cost data may 428 reveal behaviors over the long term. Correlating median household income 429 with water costs may also reveal a ordability issues. 430 These measurements and, more speci cally, providing costs to the con- 431 sumer must be done frequently enough for those budgeting to discover trends 432 and make adjustments. For example, policy makers may only need monthly 433 data to determine seasonal uctuations and set yearly budget allocations. 434 Consumers may need daily numbers to adjust leisure activities that require 435 large amounts of money or identify costly leaks. Activists and economists 436 may need both to determine the behavioral patterns that making water af- 437 fordable seeks to achieve. Survey data will have to be taken frequently high 438 enough to be relevant but low enough so people respond. 439 Action on this data is identical to action on pricing and payment data, 440 which has had mixed success. The data collected can be used to a ect 441 pricing and payment. Aggregate data can be presented to consumers to 442 show where their payment is going adn to demonstrate the value added: to 443 delivery, testing, maintenance, and land acquisition. Furthermore, policy 444 makers, economists, and activists can use aggregate data to determine if 445 pricing is fair and that the percentages of taxpayers' budgets and providers' 446 budgets are reasonably aligned with goals of universal, equitable, accessible, 447 and safe access. Because technology is not human, people may be more or less 448 likely to report nancial diculties to a machine [57, 13]. A more real-time 449 monitoring system can provide better data to determine pricing, in uence 450 usage, and determine when a ordability is altering water use. Water pricing 451 has a signi cant impact on water consumption in apartments as opposed 452 to water consumption being impacted by moral obligation in houses [39]. 453 It follows that behavioral patterns can potentially be analyzed to increase 454 provision in times of nancial hardship noting water usage decreases versus 455 total cost. 456 Technology that collects survey and usage data can be incorporated into 457 advocacy for \a ordability." It can be used to micro-target reduced pricing 458 to low-income households and neighborhoods. When these technologies are 459 combined with technologies that will improve operating health of the system 460 (e.g. the technologies used to meet the \universal", \access" and \safety" 461 elements of the SDG), overall water prices may drop. When combined with 462 transparent data for all users, not only households, the implementation of 463 fair water pricing can be advocated. Making water a ordable will not be 464 possible without de ning what is fair water pricing for which population. 465 17 8. Drinking Water 466 Drinking water is \water used for drinking, cooking, food preparation 467 and personal hygiene" [4]. An accurate picture of \drinking water" would 468 separate water usage by type both within a building and between build- 469 ings. Currently there is no physical separation and thus little data exists 470 distinguishing these uses from nondrinking uses. However, data analysis has 471 been used to approximately separate usages based on household surveys on 472 time of use. Technologies that could be used to address this would include 473 ow sensors deployed inside a building on speci c appliances and faucets. In 474 addition, introducing physical separation between drinking and nondrinking 475 (nonpotable) water usages should be introduced from an eciency standpoint 476 [58]. 477 An accurate picture of water usage can inspire alternative technologies 478 for treatment, delivery, and maintenance. Knowledge of drinking water uses 479 versus non-drinking water uses can also encourage infrastructure investment 480 in alternative sources and delivery methods to separate out uses that require 481 high-quality water from those that do not. For example, treated wastewater 482 that is high in nitrates could be used to water lawns in lieu of fertilizing 483 and watering lawns with drinking water [58]. Or, recognizing that certain 484 pipes deliver water for nondrinking (non-potable) uses could alter the use of 485 corrosion and contamination control chemicals in certain waters over others. 486 Accuracy in this arena is de ned as capturing usage and guaranteeing 487 provision of high quality drinking water in an adequate amount. This number 488 may underestimate or overestimtate the minimum daily estimate noted in 489 literature depending on an individual's health status, local climate, food 490 quality, diet, and employment. Therefore, what is \adequate" may vary 491 from household to household and person to person. 492 Usage data can be used to increase or decrease pricing for \valued" uses 493 which may inadvertently discourage exible usage of water by those that 494 cannot a ord it. For example, by increasing pricing of residential water 495 used for watering lawns, those who used that water to farm and supplement 496 household food budgets may be discouraged. Additionally, companies that 497 use water other than for drinking can be made to pay more for \drinking 498 water" or encouraged to create onsite water treatment for high-quality water. 499 Such exibility will not be known until it is clearer where and how much water 500 is being used for drinking. 501 18 9. Water for All 502 Water for all implies that water is \suitable for use by men, women, girls, 503 and boys of all ages, including people living with disabilities." An accurate 504 picture of \water for all" would capture the speci c needs of individuals, 505 since water-related health issues can cut across any segment of society and 506 are coupled to an individual's health status. Currently under the SDWA 507 and amendments, public water systems are required to sample water as di- 508 rected by their state for chemical contaminants. Many states require random 509 sampling of sites in a given service area at xed intervals, while any home, 510 oce, or school level data must be gathered by the property owner. Bio- 511 logical contaminants are required to be tested in a xed number of samples 512 per month by population. The EPA administrator is required to take into 513 account speci c vulnerable populations when setting safety standards [36]. 514 Technologies that could address this have been mentioned earlier in sec- 515 tions 3, 5, 6. Furthermore, these technologies would have to be coupled to 516 accurate health data and vulnerabilities of all populations being served. The 517 aggregation of data { for example, water usage by a neighborhood { will 518 look completely di erent from water usage of a city or a state, and policy 519 decisions made at each of these levels will have a less complete picture than a 520 coordinated e ort [27]. Even when the maximum contaminate load is set for 521 the most vulnerable population, the absence of knowledge at the residence or 522 school level, for example, can expose these populations to contamination ex- 523 ceeding that. Vulnerable populations may be hard to single out with limited 524 manpower for manual sampling. Autonomous systems can increase sampling 525 frequency spatially and temporally. Water safety meters can be installed 526 in schools, senior centers, hospitals, and other locations where vulnerable 527 populations gather to ensure they are covered, in addition to increasing the 528 number of random sample points. Furthermore, empowering local citizens 529 with data on water usage may enhance \scale capabilities" lacking at lower 530 levels of scale [27]. 531 10. Discussion and Conclusion 532 I applied the institutional analysis and development framework to analyze 533 whether technology (the material artifact), as a linkage in the IAD frame- 534 work, could support a positive outcome in the action scenarios de ned by the 535 SDG for \universal and equitable access to safe and a ordable drinking water 536 19 for all." Table 2 summarizes the primary method by which technology as a 537 linkage can encourage a positive outcome in each action scenario de ned by 538 the UN SDG for water as well as the primary challenge to that technology's 539 implementation. Table 2: Summary of IAD Analysis Action ScenarioCan Tech En- courage Positive Outcome?Primary Methodology Primary Chal- lenge Universal No N/A Jurisdictional Equitable Yes Highlighting gaps in pro- visionJurisdictional Access Yes Quantifying availability Safety Yes Quantifying contami- nantsTechnological A ordability Yes Increasing geographical and temporal scope of surveysBehavioral Drinking waterYes Separation of use Privacy Water for allNo N/A Privacy, health care infrastruc- ture 540 Water smart grids promise transparency of quality, quantity, and sustain- 541 ability metrics. Water providers showed quality improvements and violation 542 drops after the SDWA required a to be report sent to consumers [59]. Water 543 smart grid technology can provide reporting at the point of use { for exam- 544 ple, by displaying real-time safety data on a faucet. This may instill trust in 545 the source as continued positive readings will show consistency and negative 546 readings will show honesty. Still, 40% of New Jersey residents continued to 547 believe that bottled water was safer than tap after the SDWA required water 548 reports [60]. 549 Consumers, providers, and regulators can ignore provided information. 550 For example, only 9% of people surveyed understood they were able to re- 551 ceive a water report as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments 552 of 1996 [61]. Furthermore, people view health departments to be responsible 553 20 for health information about health as opposed to water departments [61]. 554 Additionally, negative data can be averaged out with more positive data, 555 while outlying data may show of systemic problems.Technology cannot ab- 556 solve providers, activists, users, or elected ocials of the responsibility to 557 monitor water. 558 In attempting to adapt the principles of the electrical smart grid to water, 559 a number of questions, both technical and sociotechnical, must be asked. For 560 safety, in particular, would water providers invest in technologies that will 561 lose relevance? Would consumers accept a technologies' safety report that 562 will soon be out of date? Would regulators sanction devices that are out of 563 date before they are deployed? How would consumer protection agencies and 564 environmental agencies coordinate on rapidly developing technology? Addi- 565 tionally, what are the technological solutions and regulatory frameworks for 566 distributive water production through home rain water, grey water, wastew- 567 ater collection, treatment, and reuse [58]? How would economic eciency of 568 water treatment be achieved without economies of scale in water treatment? 569 Who is responsible for safety, maintenance, and reporting of distributed wa- 570 ter tanks and treatment centers [62]? Is it socially acceptable to return to 571 distributed water? Furthermore, as is often asked in distributing electricity 572 generation, is it possible to maintain both a distributed system and a central- 573 ized system speci cally for those who cannot a ord capital and maintenance 574 costs associated with self-generation? 575 Now that it is clear which questions can be answered with technology, 576 a bene t cost analysis of answering these questions can be undertaken. A 577 smart-grid targeting universal water provision could reduce census taking 578 cost. Speci cally, with a more detailed population proxy, like knowing how 579 many individuals are connected to given public water systems, would reduce 580 the cost of determining if a housing unit is vacant easier and improve census 581 modeling and testing [63]. The US census in 2020 is estimated to cost $12.5 582 billion, with the majority of this cost attributed to canvasing non-responsive 583 housing units, vacant or not, and with 10% of housing units vacant, at most 584 $1.2 billion could be saved [64, 65]. A smart grid would eliminate questions 585 regarding how people get their water in the American Community Survey. 586 While the length of the questionnaire is not assumed to e ect cost of giving 587 the survey, in 2013 it was estimated to cost respondents $58 million or $0.56 588 million per question annually [66]. Moreover, collecting this data where at 589 the local levels where it is needed would reduce reliance of state and local 590 governments and private business rms on the census, dissemination of which 591 21 cost the US Census Bureau $114 million in 1990 [64]. Reducing water related 592 health care issues may save up to $250 million annually, through increased 593 income, reduced illness related absenteeism and reduced death [67, 68, 69]. 594 If 14 { 18% of drinking water is wasted due to leaks annually and the US 595 dedicated $19 billion to the state revolving loan fund each year from 2013- 596 2016, then a 10% reduction could lead to an annual $1.9 billion savings.[70, 597 71] If a water smart grid can automate the creation of a water budget it could 598 reduce border disputes. This has cost, for example, Florida $71 million over 599 sixteen years ghting Georgia, which spent $30 million over two years, over 600 water budgets and subsequent appropriations [72, 73]. The biggest bene t 601 touted by proponents of smart grid technology is accurate pricing of water 602 though it is dicult to say whether people would be willing to pay those cost. 603 The largest bene t may be renewed faith in public drinking water systems 604 and potentially an increased willingness to pay [8, 28]. 605 There would have to be 1.2 { 2.4 million sensors on a per mile or 1/2 mile 606 of water pipe. An additional 133.5 million sensors in households, multiplied 607 by the number of sensors per house. Invasive sensors would have to last 608 as long as the pipe 80 years. The biggest cost savings coming from a 609 reduction in surveying vacant property and leaks of $3.1 billion. Onsite 610 sensors would have to cost than $10 annually less to run and build while in 611 pipe sensors would have to cost less than $800 over 80 years or $64,000 612 per device. Cost of new, wide-spread, technology is likely to be less costly 613 than existing due to innovative solutions [74]. Furthermore, even the cost 614 of existing technologies, like the mass spectrophotometer which is currently 615 a lab tool, have been known to drop dramatically when retooled for mass 616 consumption. 617 Russel Train (EPA administrator 1973-1977) once commented \in control- 618 ling pollution, whether by establishing discharge standards for new sources or 619 compliance schedules for existing facilities, improvements in technology must 620 and will be a driving force in achieving our environmental goals." I found 621 that the strongest use case for technology is in the speci c action situation 622 of safety. However, the strongest challenge found to using a water smart grid 623 to achieve our SDG for water is the inclusion of land use rights and property 624 rights similar to Bakker, et al., (2008) [75]. 625 Acknowledgments 626 Supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's Minority Ph.D. Program. 627 22