Input:
	Background

Approximately 51,000 drinking water systems and 15,000 public  wastewater systems provide clean and safe water to communities  nationwide. About 9,000 drinking water systems provide service to 92  percent of the total population, or approximately 273 million people  nationwide. The remaining 8 percent of the population is served by small  systems that according to the American Society of Engineers frequently  do not have the financial, managerial, and technical capabilities  necessary to meet state and federal requirements for safe drinking water,  such as limits in the levels of specific contaminants in drinking water.
Drinking water and wastewater facilities include infrastructure such as  tanks, pipes, pumps, and buildings that contain electrical, chemical, and  mechanical equipment to treat and test water. The infrastructure is often  built to last for over 50 years or longer, depending on the equipment.  Many utilities in the country were built decades ago and therefore have  existing and aging infrastructure that they must operate and maintain.  Utilities generally develop long-term capital plans to identify the  infrastructure they will need to replace or rebuild in the future.
Utilities generally use historic records of seasonal precipitation, runoff,  water temperature, and snow pack levels to determine how their systems  should be designed and operated. According to the Water Research  Foundation’s 2014 study, utilities have designed their infrastructure based  on the expectation that future climate conditions will remain the same and  have used historical climate or other data within a 100-year range.  Generally, the study reported that utility infrastructure is designed and  operated to convey or treat water up to a specific threshold amount based  on these historic records.
As they plan to rebuild or replace their infrastructure, utilities employ or  contract with engineers to ensure that their infrastructure treats and  transports water appropriately to meet standards under the Safe Drinking  Water Act or the Clean Water Act. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act,  EPA, among other actions, sets standards to protect the nation’s drinking  water from contaminants, such as lead and arsenic. The Clean Water Act  generally prohibits the discharge of pollutants from “point sources”—such  as discharge pipes from industrial facilities and wastewater treatment  facilities—without a permit.
Drinking water and wastewater infrastructure remain the largest financial  investment by communities nationwide, according to the Water Research  Foundation’s 2014 Study. To pay for operations, maintenance, repair,  and replacement of their infrastructure, drinking water and wastewater  utilities generally raise revenues by charging their customers for the  services they provide. In addition, the federal government invests in  drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, as we reported in  September 2017. In 2017, the most recent year for which data were  available, state and local governments spent approximately $109 billion  on their drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, according to  Congressional Budget Office data. During the same time period, the  federal government spent approximately $4 billion on drinking water and  wastewater infrastructure.

		Climate Information Provided by the Federal Government

Agencies across the federal government, such as NOAA and the National  Aeronautics and Space Administration, collect and manage many types of  climate information and provide technical assistance to make this  information more meaningful to federal, state, local, and private decision  makers. Decision makers from all levels of government and the private  sector use different types of climate information in their planning  processes to reduce the potential impacts of climate change. To be  useful, climate information must be tailored to meet the needs of each  decision maker, such as an engineer responsible for building a bridge in a  specific location, a county planner responsible for managing development  in a large region, or a federal official managing a national-scale program.  Decision makers also need climate information at different timescales  corresponding to the short-, medium-, or long-term nature of their  planning processes. A 2011 World Meteorological Organization report  stated that decision makers need access to expert advice and support to  help them select and properly apply climate information.
According to a 2010 National Research Council report on making  informed decisions about climate change and our November 2015 report  on climate information, most decision makers need a basic set of  information to understand and make choices about how to adapt to  climate change. The set of information includes the following:  Information and analysis about observed climate conditions. This  includes information on, for example, temperature, precipitation,  drought, storms, and sea level rise and how they may be changing in  a local area.
Information about observed climate impacts and vulnerabilities.  This includes site-specific and relevant information on environmental,  social, and economic impacts and vulnerabilities, resulting from  observed changes in the climate against which past and current  decisions can be monitored, evaluated, and modified over time.
Projections of what climate change may mean for a local area.
This includes, for example, projections based on easily  understandable best- and worst-case scenarios with confidence  intervals and probability estimates and examples of potential climate  impacts. The primary source is NOAA’s online Climate Explorer,  which provides climate projections in a range of climate variables  relevant to decision makers for every county in the contiguous United  States, enabling users to compare historical climate observations  under two possible climate change scenarios that could occur this  century.
Information on the economic and health impacts of climate  change. Observed and projected local impacts must be translated  into costs and benefits, as this information is needed for many  decision-making processes.
Agencies across the federal government collect and manage many types  of climate information, including observational records from satellites and  weather monitoring stations on temperature and precipitation, among  other things; projections from complex climate models; and other tools to  make this information more meaningful to decision makers.

		Federal Planning for Critical Infrastructure Resilience

Presidential Policy Directive 21 directs federal agencies to work with  owners and operators and state, local, tribal, and territorial entities to  manage risks and strengthen the security and resilience of critical  infrastructure against all hazards. The directive, issued in 2013,  identifies 16 critical infrastructure sectors whose assets, systems, and  networks—either physical or virtual—are considered so vital to the United  States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating  effect on the nation’s security, economy, and public health or safety. One  of the sectors is the Water and Wastewater Sector. The directive  established a national policy on critical infrastructure security and  resilience and made DHS the lead agency to coordinate the overall  federal effort to promote security and resilience of the nation’s critical  infrastructure.
The directive assigned protection responsibilities to selected federal  government agencies and departments, called Sector Specific Agencies,  and designated EPA as the Sector Specific Agency for the Water and  Wastewater Sector. As the Sector Specific Agency, EPA organized a  Water and Wastewater Government Coordinating Council, including  federal, state, and local decision makers. In turn, water utility owners and  operators organized the Water and Wastewater Sector Coordinating  Council. EPA and the councils work together and are responsible for  planning and implementing the sector’s security and resilience activities.
Presidential Policy Directive 21 also directed the DHS to update the  National Infrastructure Protection Plan to provide a framework for how  federal, state and local decision makers and private sector stakeholders  can coordinate to improve the security and resilience of critical  infrastructure. The DHS updated the National Infrastructure Protection  Plan in 2013 and EPA issued the Water and Wastewater Sector-Specific  Plan in 2015.
In 2016, the Water and Wastewater Government Coordinating Council  and the Water and Wastewater Sector Coordinating Council chartered the  Water and Wastewater Sector Strategic Roadmap Work Group to review  key threats and vulnerabilities of the sector, identify gaps in the sector’s  capabilities relative to the key threats and vulnerabilities, and develop  priorities and associated actions to address those gaps. In 2017, the work  group issued the report, Roadmap to a Secure and Resilient Water and  Wastewater Sector (Roadmap), in part, to help inform utilities’, industry  groups’, and government agencies’ planning processes and to support  collaboration and leverage resources between stakeholders in the  sector. The resulting report identified weather-related disasters, such as  floods and earthquakes, and long-term climate-related hazards, such as  drought and sea level rise, as among the most significant risks to drinking  water and wastewater infrastructure.

		GAO Work on Climate Information and Disaster Resilience

Our previous work on climate change found that the federal government  could improve the way that it provides information to facilitate more  informed local infrastructure adaptation decisions. In November 2015, we  reported that federal agencies could help local infrastructure decision  makers by providing the best available climate-related information and by  clarifying federal sources of technical assistance for incorporating climate- related information into their planning. In November 2015, we found that  federal efforts to provide climate information could be improved by  incorporating key organizational and data elements, including (1) a  focused and accountable organization; (2) authoritative data that define  the best available information for decision makers; and (3) technical  assistance to help decision makers assess, translate, and use climate  information in planning. We recommended that the Executive Office of  the President direct a federal entity to develop a set of authoritative  climate change projections and observations and create a national  climate information system with defined roles for federal and nonfederal  entities. The Executive Office of the President neither agreed nor  disagreed with the recommendations and, as of May 2018, had not  implemented them.
Our previous work on natural disasters found that disaster costs are a key  source of federal fiscal exposure. In our July 2015 report on Hurricane  Sandy, we found that there was no comprehensive, strategic approach to  identifying, prioritizing, and implementing investments for disaster  resilience, which increases the risk that the federal government and  nonfederal partners will experience lower returns on investments or lost  opportunities to strengthen critical infrastructure. We recommended that  the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group—an interagency group  chaired by FEMA that organizes mitigation efforts across the federal  government and assesses the effectiveness of mitigation strategies— establish an investment strategy to identify, prioritize, and guide federal  investments in disaster resilience and hazard mitigation-related activities  and make recommendations to the President and Congress on how the  nation should prioritize future disaster resilience investments. The  Mitigation Framework Leadership Group agreed and issued the National  Mitigation Investment Strategy in August 2019.
In September 2018, we reported that four near-sequential disasters in  2017—Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma, Hurricane Maria, and the  California wildfires—created an unprecedented demand for federal  disaster response and recovery resources and that Hurricanes Harvey,  Irma, and Maria ranked among the top five costliest hurricanes on  record. As of June 2018, Congress had appropriated over $120 billion in  supplemental funding for response and recovery related to the 2017  hurricanes and wildfires.
In October 2019, we issued a Disaster Resilience Framework that  identifies federal actions and opportunities to enhance and promote  disaster and climate change resilience nationwide focusing on three  principles where the federal government can influence decision-making.  First, the framework states that federal action can help ensure that  decision makers at all levels of government and across industrial sectors  can access, understand, and use information on current and future  disaster risk. As part of this, federal agencies can use risk reduction  strategies, such as providing technical assistance to help decision makers  use climate information in their infrastructure investment decisions.  Second, the framework stated that federal agencies can help decision  makers use risk reduction strategies and prioritize all types of risk. For  example, federal agencies can ensure that federal programs and policies  that support disaster risk reduction are well coordinated. Third, the  framework stated that federal agencies can provide decision makers at all  levels of government and across sectors with incentives to make long- term, forward-looking risk reduction investments and remove barriers to  such investments.

	Potential Climate Change Impacts Could Have Various Effects on Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, and the Type and Severity of the Effects Will Vary by Region

Projected increases in the frequency, severity, and duration of extreme  temperature changes or precipitation events, as well as rising sea levels,  are among the potential impacts of climate change that may affect  drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. The type and severity of  these potential impacts on drinking water and wastewater infrastructure  will vary by region.
EPA, the USGCRP, NOAA, and other federal agencies have identified a  variety of potential climate change impacts that may affect drinking water  and wastewater infrastructure, as well as other critical and interconnected  industries. EPA’s Adaptation Strategies Guide for Water Utilities (Guide)  identifies five general categories of climate change impacts that can affect  drinking water and wastewater utilities: ecosystem changes, droughts,  floods, water quality degradation, and changes in service demand and  use. Within these five general categories, EPA has identified specific  climate change impacts that may affect drinking water and wastewater  infrastructure systems. For example, degraded water quality from  decreased stream flows may lead to higher treatment costs and the need  for capital improvements to treat wastewater before discharging it from  wastewater treatment facilities to meet more stringent regulatory  requirements. Additionally, projected sea level rise can lead to saltwater  intrusion in coastal groundwater aquifers and in estuaries. This may  degrade water quality and increase treatment costs for drinking water  treatment facilities or require new desalination facilities to treat water  supplies with higher salt content.
According to the Fourth National Climate Assessment, compound  extreme events—the combination of two or more hazard events or  climate variables (e.g., extreme rainfall and storm surge) that occur  simultaneously or consecutively that lead to an extreme impact—have a  multiplying effect on the risk to drinking water and wastewater  infrastructure systems. Compound extreme events can also increase the  risk of cascading infrastructure failure since some infrastructure systems  rely on others and the failure of one system can lead to the failure of  interconnected systems. This includes a water infrastructure system  relying on the energy sector for power to operate pump stations and  drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities. For example, during  Hurricane Sandy in 2012, extreme rainfall coincided with high tides  creating a storm surge. Hurricane Sandy caused power outages and  flooding at eight of New York City’s 14 wastewater treatment facilities and  42 of the city’s 96 pumping stations. Further, power outages and flooding  of wastewater treatment facilities and the large influx of floodwater in the  sewer system resulted in the release of approximately 562 million gallons  of untreated and diluted sewage into local waterways, as shown in figure  1.
The Fourth National Climate Assessment states that drinking water and  wastewater infrastructure in every region in the United States are  sensitive to weather- and climate-related events and noted that the  effects of such events will vary in severity and type by region, meaning  different measures will be required to make infrastructure more resilient.  The Fourth National Climate Assessment established 10 climate regions  to better address the risks and needs of specific regions across the  United States. Further, EPA’s Guide states that the type and severity of  potential climate impacts on utilities will vary by region, and identifies the  impacts that have the greatest likelihood of affecting utilities in the  different regions and along the U.S. coast.
For example, in the Southwest, increased duration and intensity of  drought may stress water supplies and increase water demand for  agricultural uses, increase energy requirements to treat and cool drinking  water and wastewater effluent, and require investments in new water  sources and options for reusing water. In the Northwest, increased water  temperatures, as well as wildfires that create increased nutrient runoff,  may degrade drinking water quality from higher levels of harmful toxins  and algal blooms, and require drinking water utilities to develop increased  treatment capabilities.
The interactive map in figure 2 displays the 10 climate regions as  established in the Fourth National Climate Assessment and the U.S.  coasts, the most relevant potential climate change impacts for each  region and the coast, and examples of the potential effects on drinking  water and wastewater utilities, according to EPA’s Guide.

	One Federal Program Is Designed to Provide Technical Assistance to Water Utilities for Climate Resilience, but Options Exist for Coordinating Additional Technical Assistance

One federal program—EPA’s Creating Resilient Water Utilities initiative— is designed to provide technical assistance to drinking water and  wastewater utilities for planning climate resilient infrastructure, although  the 15 selected utilities used a mix of sources, including other federal  programs, to obtain technical assistance with understanding climate  impacts and designing resilient infrastructure. To provide additional  technical assistance for climate resilience, selected experts generally  supported the option of developing a coordinated network of technical  assistance providers including federal and state agencies, universities,  consultants, and industry groups.

		EPA’s Creating Resilient Water Utilities Initiative Is Designed to Provide Technical Assistance to Water Utilities for Climate Resilience

Our review of the programs federal agencies’ used to provide technical  assistance to 15 selected utilities to help make drinking water and  wastewater infrastructure more climate resilient found that one program— EPA’s Creating Resilient Water Utilities initiative (CRWU)—was  specifically designed to provide drinking water, wastewater, and  stormwater utilities with the practical tools, resources, training, and  technical assistance needed to increase resilience to extreme weather  events. The initiative provides web-based tools and resources in the form  of an interactive guide, a case studies map, a risk assessment tool,  climate scenario projection maps, and storm surge inundation maps to  help drinking water and wastewater utilities understand potential long- term risks and options to enhance their resilience to climate impacts,  including extreme weather events. Furthermore, CRWU provides direct  utility technical assistance and training through workshops and onsite  exercises with utilities. As part of the initiative, EPA developed the  Climate Resilience Evaluation and Assessment Tool (CREAT), a web- based application to assist drinking water and wastewater utilities in  understanding potential climate change impacts and assessing the  related risks to their systems. EPA also developed a Resilient Strategies  Guide for Water Utilities, a web-based interactive guide to help drinking  water and wastewater utilities identify resilience strategies to prepare for  droughts, protect water quality, build flood protections, preserve  ecosystems, maintain service levels, improve energy efficiency,  implement green infrastructure, and conserve water. In addition, from  2010 through 2013, EPA collaborated with the Water Research  Foundation and NOAA to publish the results of a series of workshops  assessing the information and tools necessary to incorporate climate risks  into utility planning.
As part of a pilot program to help EPA develop CREAT, most of the  drinking water and wastewater utilities we reviewed used CREAT to  conduct climate risk assessments of their systems. Utility  representatives said the tool was a helpful starting point for thinking about  potential climate risks and vulnerable infrastructure qualitatively. For  example, Bozeman Water and Sewer (Bozeman, Montana) used CREAT  to assess potential consequences of drought, water quality changes, and  wildfires on their drinking water assets and operations to better  understand their systems’ vulnerabilities and start thinking about potential  resilience measures. Keene Public Works (Keene, New Hampshire) also  used CREAT to assess potential climate change impacts from extreme  precipitation events on their water supplies and drinking water system  and evaluate the performance and costs of additional short-term and  long-term resilience measures. However, representatives from a few  drinking water and wastewater utilities said they used additional  assistance from consulting firms to help them use CREAT, and to  complete assessments on the current and future climate risks to their  infrastructure systems.
A few other federal agencies have been involved in efforts to help utilities  incorporate climate resilience into their planning, but their programs were  not specifically designed to provide technical assistance to water utilities.  NOAA’s Regional Integrated Science Assessments (RISA) program and  the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) worked with  utilities and EPA, through an effort called the Water Utility Climate  Alliance which aims to enhance the quality and accessibility of regional  climate change data to help improve water resource planning, develop  adaptation strategies, and assist overall decision-making for water-related  policies. The alliance, which was formed in 2007 and includes 12 of the  nation’s largest drinking water utilities, provides leadership and  collaboration on climate change issues affecting the country’s water  agencies. The alliance collaborates with member agencies, federal  agencies, industry groups, academia, and consulting firms to provide  workshops on planning for climate change uncertainty for drinking water  and wastewater sector professionals.
Representatives from the New York City Department of Environmental  Protection (New York City, New York) and the San Diego County Water  Authority (San Diego, California), stated that through their membership in  the alliance, they have used technical assistance from NOAA’s RISA  program research teams and the Water Research Foundation to manage  their climate risks. Specifically, in 2010, four Water Utility Climate Alliance  members, including the New York Department of Environmental  Protection (New York City, New York), contributed to a pilot project to  better understand how climate change might affect their water systems  through collaboration between climate experts and utilities, with the goal  of improving the process of producing climate information utilities need for  decision-making. Two RISA research teams, the Consortium on Climate  Risk in the Urban Northeast at Columbia University and the Pacific  Northwest Climate Impacts Research Consortium at Oregon State  University, provided technical assistance on climate information and  modeling to support the effort. In 2013, three Water Utility Climate  Alliance members, including the San Diego County Water Authority (San  Diego, California), contributed to a research study to increase the  adaptive capacity of water utilities in planning for and responding to  pressures that may result from climate change, particularly related to the  demand for water. The Water Research Foundation led the study.
We found that other federal programs offer technical assistance, but the  assistance is either not targeted to drinking water and wastewater utilities  or it is not specific to climate impacts. For example, San Diego Public  Utilities (San Diego, California) worked with the Bureau of Reclamation to  assess the region’s water supply and demand, determine the potential  effects from climate change impacts within the region, and explore  alternatives for addressing future water management challenges.  Utilities in Estes Park, Colorado and Iowa City, Iowa worked with FEMA  after flood events to develop long-term recovery plans that made their  river pipeline crossings stronger and moved a wastewater treatment plant  from the floodplain, respectively. In addition, several of the selected  utilities worked with NOAA or the U.S. Geological Survey to collect data  necessary for planning efforts, including monitoring weather and storms,  rainfall levels from stream gauges, and salt water intrusion into water  supplies. Houston Water (Houston, Texas) also used NOAA’s Atlas 14  Precipitation-Frequency Atlas to update its floodplain regulations and  redefine the amount of rainfall it takes to qualify as a 100-year or 1,000- year flood event (see fig. 3 for pictures of flooded infrastructure).
To date, federal efforts to provide technical assistance to help drinking  water and wastewater utilities manage climate risks have been small- scale or pilot efforts to develop tools and information. For example, EPA’s  CRWU has developed a number of tools and guides for utilities and has  provided training and assisted a number of utilities, but the number of  utilities that EPA helped directly is small—about 50—and EPA does not  have the resources to provide assistance to all utilities, according to EPA  officials. Similarly, the Water Utility Climate Alliance’s membership  consists of 12 utilities in large metropolitan areas, and has focused on  large utilities when developing examples of how drinking water utilities  can plan for climate risks according to Water Utility Climate Alliance  representatives; however, these alliance members are large enough to  have in-house climate expertise and have established relationships with  federal or university-based climate services providers. According to  industry group officials, the majority of the 70,000 utilities across the  country are small and do not have resources to work with consultants or  research climate information.
While water utilities used federal technical assistance, we found that  almost all of the selected drinking water and wastewater utilities,  regardless of size, used a mix of technical assistance providers including  consultants, industry groups, academia, or federal programs to help them  plan for resilience projects, as shown in appendix IV. Most of the selected  utilities said they used a mix of assistance because they needed help  understanding what climate information and climate models were  appropriate to use for their regions and locales. For example, Anacortes  Public Works (Anacortes, Washington) worked with the Skagit Climate  Science Consortium—a nonprofit organization—to conduct a climate risk  assessment for their drinking water system. Anacortes Public Works  used the initial climate risk assessment to implement projects that will  increase their resilience to the most significant effects from climate- related impacts, flooding, and increased sediment levels in their water  supply (see fig. 4). Anacortes Public Works plans to work with the  consortium again to better understand how rising sea levels and  increasing salinity levels will affect their drinking water supply in the  future. A few utilities said that technical assistance efforts should be a  collaborative process between the utilities using climate information to  make decisions and the scientists providing the technical assistance to  ensure that climate information and models are what drinking water and  wastewater utilities need to plan for climate resilience.

		Selected Experts Stated That Additional Technical Assistance and a Network of Technical Assistance Providers Could Help Utilities Enhance Climate Resilience

All 10 of the selected experts we interviewed said that drinking water and  wastewater utilities need additional technical assistance to manage  climate risks. Specifically, these experts stated that utilities need technical  assistance to use key climate information to incorporate climate resilience  into their planning and operations. This information includes the following:  forward-looking climate information and models to identify  vulnerabilities to specific geographic regions; potential climate change impacts on regional and local socioeconomic  and demographic trends for utility users; hydrologic information on the movement, distribution, and quality of  water at the local, regional, and/or watershed level; and estimates of benefits and costs of incorporating resilience into utility  projects.
According to several of the selected experts we interviewed, such  information is provided through a mix of sources, depending on what is  available, and all sources are needed. Several selected experts also said  that the utilities could obtain forward-looking climate information and  models from federal agencies, such as NOAA, and could obtain  information on potential climate change impacts from CREAT. In addition,  several experts stated that they could obtain local socioeconomic and  demographic data, hydrologic information, and benefit-cost information  from industry sources, universities, and consultants.
Several of the experts we interviewed also said that such assistance is  not a one-time event, but requires consistent and continuous collaborative  efforts between utilities and technical assistance providers. For example,  several experts said that utilities need technical assistance on an ongoing  basis to reevaluate their planning and operations regularly given the  uncertainty associated with the severity of some potential climate risks. In  addition, several experts said that individual utilities need help  understanding which climate information and analytical tools are  appropriate for assessing the climate risks specific to their regions or  localities, and how to use them to manage climate risks to their  infrastructure. Almost all of the experts said that small and rural utilities  would need additional technical assistance to collect and use the  information necessary to enhance their resilience to climate change  impacts. Specifically, several experts said that, as opposed to many large  utilities, small utilities lack the technical capacity to use climate  information and do not have the financial resources to hire consultants or  develop the internal expertise necessary to manage climate risks to their  drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.
Further, most of the selected experts we interviewed stated that a  network of providers would be needed to provide assistance to water  utilities. This is consistent with what we and others have previously  reported. For example, we reported in November 2015 that clearly  organized technical assistance would improve federal climate information  efforts by helping different types of decision makers—ranging from those  who can define their needs to those who have limited experience using  climate information—access, translate, and use climate information. We  also found that key stakeholders and relevant studies generally called for  a system of nonfederal technical assistance providers, with federal  leadership to help federal, state, and local decision makers, including  utility decision makers, use climate information. In addition, a 2014 task  force of state, local, and tribal leaders stated that the greatest need for  enhancing climate resilience is often not the creation of new data or  information, but assistance and tools for decision makers, including utility  managers, in navigating the wide array of resources already available.
Further, in August 2019, the National Mitigation Investment Strategy  recommended that the federal government increase investment in hazard  mitigation by building the capacity of communities to address their risks,  including climate-related risks. To implement the recommendation, the  strategy said that the federal government should create a professional  network to encourage collaboration and information sharing across  different levels of government and the water and wastewater sector, and  that the federal government and its nonfederal partners should work  together to develop a pool of skilled mitigation professionals.
The following is a list of options for providing a network of technical  assistance providers that selected experts we interviewed discussed, as  well as the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Existing utility technical assistance providers. A strengthened and  expanded network of existing federal technical assistance providers,  including EPA’s Environmental Finance Centers, USDA’s Rural  Utilities Service, the National Rural Water Association, and the Rural  Community Assistance Partnership, could help consolidate climate  information and provide technical assistance to utilities to improve  their resilience. Most experts said that a network of existing utility  technical assistance providers would have the advantage of  established relationships with communities and utilities or could  ensure that small and rural utilities obtain needed information and  assistance to improve their resilience to climate change. However,  several experts said that the network may lack the expertise  necessary to effectively identify or develop climate information and  planning tools to provide the technical assistance necessary to meet  the specific needs of utilities to improve their resilience. See appendix  V for additional information on these programs.
Existing federal climate services providers. A strengthened and  expanded network of existing federal climate services providers, such  as USDA’s Climate Hubs, Interior’s Landscape Conservation  Cooperatives, Interior’s Climate Science Centers, and NOAA’s RISA  program could provide technical assistance to utilities to improve their  resilience. Several experts said that a network of existing federal  climate services providers would have a good understanding of the  available climate information and would, for example, be best  positioned to develop the specific tools and guidance necessary to  provide the technical assistance utilities need to improve their  resilience. In contrast, several experts said that federal climate  services providers may not have the established relationships with  utilities necessary to understand and tailor technical assistance to the  needs of individual utilities. In addition, one expert said that the  climate services providers may not have the funding to provide these  services to utilities in a comprehensive way. See appendix V for  additional information on these programs.
Universities and university-based research centers. A new  network of academic or university-based technical assistance  providers, such as NCAR, organized by state, region, or watershed  could provide technical assistance to all types of utilities to improve  their resilience. According to several experts, this option would be  advantageous because many universities and centers already have  the technical capacity to use climate information to provide risk  assessment and planning tools necessary to provide technical  assistance to utilities at the local or regional level. Several experts  also said that it would be cost-effective to expand this option because  some universities and centers are already providing technical  assistance. However, several experts said that without a clear shift in  federal incentives to prioritize the applied research necessary to  provide the technical assistance that utilities need, universities and  centers are unlikely to provide sustained assistance nationwide.  Similarly, several experts said that federal coordination would be  needed to ensure that the universities and centers were consistently  providing information, planning tools, and assistance that meet the  specific needs of utilities. See appendix V for additional information on  these programs.
Industry groups and private-engineering consultants. A new  network of nonfederal industry and nonprofit groups, such as the  American Water Works Association and the Association of Municipal  Water Utilities, could provide technical assistance to utilities to  improve their resilience. Several experts said that this option would be  advantageous because it could leverage existing relationships, for  example, to strengthen information sharing between utilities regarding  the best available climate information and approaches to resilience  planning. In addition, several experts said that industry groups and  private engineering consultants would have a better understanding of  utility operations and management when compared to other options  for providing technical assistance. In contrast, half of the experts said  that this network would need additional federal oversight and  coordination. For example, several experts said that there would need  to be a certification process for industry groups and private  consultants to ensure that the technical assistance being provided to  utilities was sufficient and transparent. In addition, several experts  said that the network would not be effective unless it was coordinated  among stakeholders from, for example, the private sector; industry  groups; and federal, state, and local governments.
A network of utilities. A network of utilities, similar to the Water  Utility Climate Alliance, could consolidate and update information and  provide technical assistance for all types of utilities to improve their  resilience. Similar to a network of industry groups and consultants,  several experts said a network of utilities could help coordinate and  strengthen information sharing between utilities on best practices and  lessons learned from resilience planning. However, several other  experts said that it would be difficult to develop and expand a network  of utilities that was capable of providing technical assistance to utilities  of different sizes or geographic locations. One expert also said that  utilities that provide technical assistance would need to be certified by  the federal government, academics, or industry groups to ensure the  technical assistance being provided to utilities was sufficient.
When asked how they would design a network to provide technical  assistance, most experts supported an approach in which federal  agencies organized a network of technical assistance providers for  drinking water and wastewater utilities, a network that would include  federal and state agencies, universities, consultants, and industry groups.  For example, one expert said that EPA and other relevant federal  agencies could provide guidance and leadership for a network of (1)  university and federal climate services providers that would assess the  risks that potential climate impacts pose to utilities and (2) utility technical  assistance providers, including consultants and industry groups, to help  utilities apply those assessments to their infrastructure to make it more  resilient.
Another expert said that existing networks of universities, industry groups  and consultants, or utilities would not be as effective unless they were  part of a larger networked effort with clear leadership that provides  continuous technical assistance to utilities. Similarly, several experts  stated that it was important that the network be a collaboration of different  technical assistance providers to be able to tailor the technical assistance  to the needs of different types of utilities, in different locations, with  differing technical capabilities. For example, one expert said that  universities, industry groups, and federal programs have different levels  of resources and expertise in different regions of the country and a  coordinated network could help utilities identify the sources of technical  assistance in their regions or localities. Further, another expert said that it  was important that the network have the capability to help utilities  understand and respond to climate risks that other types of infrastructure  create. Specifically, the expert said that while EPA has a role in regulating  drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, the agency does not  regulate larger-scale infrastructure, such as dams and reservoirs that  need to be operational to reduce risks to utilities.
Under Presidential Policy Directive 21, EPA, as the Sector Specific  Agency for the water and wastewater systems sector, is to work to enable  efficient information exchange between federal agencies and  infrastructure owners and operators, and to implement an integration and  analysis function to inform planning and operational decisions regarding  critical infrastructure. In addition, one of the key activities of the Water  Sector Government Coordinating Council, which EPA chairs, is to  facilitate information sharing between federal, state, and local decision  makers on critical infrastructure protection. This is consistent with our  disaster resilience framework, which states that federal efforts should  improve the availability of authoritative, understandable, and  comprehensive information on disaster risks and risk reduction strategies  to help entities effectively assess their climate risks, determine what  viable alternatives are available to increase resilience to those risks, and  better understand and measure the impact of resilience strategies. Our  framework also states that federal efforts can help by providing technical  assistance and capacity building to nonfederal partners.
To date, however, federal efforts to provide technical assistance to  drinking water and wastewater utilities do not provide the ongoing  technical assistance that according to experts utilities need to plan and  build climate resilient infrastructure. In addition, current efforts may not be  widespread enough to provide comprehensive coverage of the drinking  water and wastewater utilities across the nation. The 2017 Roadmap  shows actions for the short term (2 years) and midterm (5 years), but it  does not include actions such as developing guidance on technical  assistance, building networks of technical assistance providers, or  developing other methods to help utilities build capacity to manage their  climate change risks and plan for resilient infrastructure. According to  EPA officials we interviewed, the agency has worked within its existing  authorities and available resources to prioritize developing voluntary  guidance, tools, training, and webinars that utilities can use to identify  potential risks from climate change and plan to improve their resilience.  Further, EPA officials said that while the agency has collaborated closely  with key federal, state, and local decision makers; industry groups; and  utilities in its role as chair of the Water Sector Government Coordinating  Council, the council has focused on other short-term threats to utilities,  such as disasters and terrorism, and has not assessed how it could  develop and coordinate a network to effectively provide the technical  assistance that utilities need to enhance their climate resilience. By  identifying and engaging existing technical assistance providers in a  network to help drinking water and wastewater utilities incorporate climate  resilience into their projects and planning on an ongoing basis, EPA  would have more reasonable assurance that climate information was  effectively exchanged among federal agencies and infrastructure owners  and operators.
Supporting the need for a broader collaborative approach, several of the  selected utilities are already members of organizations that coordinate  and collaborate among members and various technical assistance  providers, including federal agencies, to understand the potential climate  impacts for their regions, use similar climate models, and share best  practices for projects to enhance climate resilience. For example, the  Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact is a decade-old  partnership between Miami-Dade, Broward, Monroe, and Palm Beach  Counties to coordinate mitigation and adaptation activities across county  lines in response to the effects of climate change, including sea level rise,  flooding, and economic and social disruptions. The compact and its  partners work with various federal, state, regional, municipal, nonprofit,  academic, and private sector partners to provide technical assistance and  support for utilities in southeast Florida to help the region identify  emerging issues and all move in one direction for resilience planning  efforts. The supporting federal agencies include NOAA, EPA, and the  Army Corps of Engineers. Another example is Charleston Water  (Charleston, South Carolina), a member of the Charleston Resilience  Network—a collaborative group of public, private, and nonprofit  organizations in the region that work to increase resilience of  communities, critical infrastructure, and the economy to natural disasters  and chronic coastal hazards, such as rising sea levels. The network  provides a forum to share science-based information, educate  stakeholders, and enhance long-term resilience planning decisions. The  network also works to provide consistent information for planning  decisions. The federal agencies that advise the Charleston Resilience  Network include NOAA, DHS, and the Army Corps of Engineers.

	The Federal Agencies Do Not Consistently Provide Financial Assistance for Projects That Could Enhance Climate Change Resilience and Limit Future Fiscal Exposure

The four selected federal agencies in our review provide broad financial  assistance to help drinking water and wastewater utilities plan and build  infrastructure projects. The agencies have taken some actions to promote  climate resilience when providing financial assistance for water  infrastructure projects, but they do not consistently include the  consideration of climate resilience when funding such projects. Most  selected experts we interviewed suggested that requiring the  consideration of climate change risks in the planning and design of all  federally funded water and wastewater infrastructure projects could help  enhance climate resilience and limit future federal fiscal exposure.

		Four Federal Agencies Provide Financial Assistance for Projects But Do Not Consider Climate Resilience Consistently

The four federal agencies we reviewed have nine programs that provide  broad financial assistance, through loans or grants, for drinking water and  wastewater infrastructure (see table 1). However, federal programs  generally do not have selection criteria or requirements for utilities to  incorporate climate resilience in the planning and design of projects that  receive federal financial assistance.
Each of the programs used different selection criteria for providing  financial assistance to drinking water and wastewater utilities. EPA’s  Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, Clean Water State Revolving Fund,  and Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) programs  generally provide financial assistance to projects that address the most  serious risks to human health and ensure compliance with the Safe  Drinking Water Act or Clean Water Act. Other programs, such as  FEMA’s Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation Grant programs provide  financial assistance to repair or replace infrastructure damaged during  natural disasters, or to enhance disaster resilience against future  damage. HUD’s Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery  funding is used for, among other things, projects to help cities,  communities, and states recover from presidentially-declared disasters or  enhance disaster resilience of damaged infrastructure, especially in low- income areas. USDA provides financial assistance for drinking water and  wastewater infrastructure in small and rural communities. According to  EPA, FEMA, HUD, and USDA officials we interviewed, drinking water and  wastewater utilities can use financial assistance from their programs to  pay for projects that, in addition to other benefits, can help enhance  climate resilience.
We have previously reported that the federal government invests billions  of dollars annually in infrastructure—such as roads, bridges, and  wastewater infrastructure—but faces increasing risks from climate  change. When the climate changes, infrastructure—typically designed  to operate within past climate conditions—may not operate as well or for  as long as planned, leading to economic, environmental, and social  impacts. We have also reported that some federal agencies have made  efforts to manage climate change risk within existing programs and  operations—a concept known as mainstreaming—and these efforts may  convey some climate resilience benefits. For example, an agency  planning to build a seawall to protect a coastal facility might build it higher  to account for rising sea level projections, but may not track this spending  as related to climate change.
Representatives of several of the drinking water and wastewater utilities  we reviewed reported using selected federal financial assistance  programs to help fund projects for fiscal years 2011 through 2018 that, in  addition to other benefits, enhanced their climate resilience. For example,  Iowa City Public Works used financial assistance from HUD Community  Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery funding and FEMA’s Public  Assistance grant program to increase their resilience to floods by  relocating a flood-prone wastewater treatment facility after flooding in  2008, as shown in figure 5.
Similarly, as of December 2018, Houston Water was working with FEMA  to use Public Assistance grants and Hazard Mitigation grants to increase  the utility’s resilience to floods and extreme storm events when rebuilding  the wastewater infrastructure damaged by Hurricane Harvey in 2017,  according to Houston Water representatives. In addition, the San Diego  Public Utilities Department received an EPA WIFIA loan to increase its  resilience to droughts by building a new recycled wastewater treatment  facility that will provide an additional source of drinking water and reduce  the need for water imported from the Colorado River Basin (see app. VI  for details on completed and ongoing infrastructure projects that utilities  undertook to enhance their climate resilience, according to selected  drinking water and wastewater utility representatives).
The remaining selected utilities relied on other sources of funding such as  municipal bonds and funds raised primarily through user rates and fees  for fiscal years 2011 through 2018 to enhance their climate resilience  (see app. VII for details on the financial assistance drinking water and  wastewater utilities used for infrastructure projects). However, making the  nation’s drinking water and wastewater infrastructure resilient will be  expensive, costing anywhere from $448 billion to $944 billion, including  operations and maintenance through 2050, according to a 2009  Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies study, the most recent such  study. These costs would likely be in addition to the EPA-estimated  $774 billion in costs for replacing and repairing existing infrastructure over  the next 20 years. According to representatives of several of the selected  utilities in our review, additional financial assistance will be necessary to  enhance the resilience of drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.  Representatives from several utilities said they would not be able to make  the necessary upgrades to incorporate climate resilience into their  drinking water or wastewater systems without additional grant assistance.  Based on estimates from one of the selected utilities, the costs to  enhance their resilience will be high. For example, in 2013, the New York  Department of Environmental Protection estimated that it would cost  about $315 million to build the protective measures necessary to make its  wastewater treatment facilities and pump stations resilient to future flood  projections.
Officials from EPA, FEMA, HUD, and USDA said that federal agencies  have taken action to change program requirements or selection criteria to  provide financial assistance for projects that enhance climate resilience.  However, according to federal officials, some federal agencies are  providing financial assistance to utilities for projects that do not consider  climate resilience in their planning and design consistently. In addition,  federal officials stated that their ability to require that climate resilience be  incorporated in the projects they fund is limited by requirements specific  to their programs. Examples of their efforts, and limited authorities,  include the following:
EPA. EPA provides annual grants to states to capitalize their state- level drinking water and wastewater state revolving fund programs.  The states use the revolving funds to provide low-cost loans or other  financial assistance to communities for, among other things, a wide  range of drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects.  According to EPA officials, states establish program criteria and do  not consider climate resilience consistently in planning and designing  projects that receive financial assistance from state revolving fund  programs. Specifically, EPA officials said that despite agency efforts  to promote climate resilience, states have discretion in setting project  funding criteria and priorities for their state revolving fund programs,  and that the agency does not have the authority to require that states  prioritize projects that incorporate climate resilience. EPA continued to  encourage the states to incorporate resilience planning in their priority systems. In documents released in May 2016, September 2016, and  June 2017, the EPA described the types of climate resilience projects  eligible for drinking water and clean water state revolving fund  assistance. The September 2016 document also describes how  programs can encourage resilient infrastructure through financial  incentives. According to fiscal year 2015 data that EPA provided, 17  state clean water revolving fund programs have created additional  financial incentives that utilities could use to fund climate resilience  projects, and only New York’s program requires that climate risks from  sea level rise be incorporated into the projects that receive financial  assistance. In addition, utilities have discretion in whether to  incorporate climate resilience into their state revolving fund project  applications, and EPA cannot require utilities to incorporate climate  resilience into the planning and construction of projects that states  fund, according to EPA officials. Similarly, while EPA manages the  WIFIA program and its application process and criteria, EPA officials  said that the 2018 and 2019 program guidance did not prioritize  protection against the impacts of climate change in its selection  criteria, and that the agency does not require that applicants  incorporate climate resilience into project planning and design.
FEMA. FEMA’s Public Assistance Grant Program provides grants to  state, tribal, territorial, and local governments, and nonprofits that can  be used to repair and replace damaged infrastructure, including  drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. In addition, FEMA’s Pre- Disaster Mitigation and Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs can provide  financial assistance to states, communities, or tribes that can be used  to reduce the risks to drinking water and wastewater infrastructure  from future disasters. FEMA officials said they have developed  guidance for states and communities to incorporate climate resilience  into the planning for projects funded by all three programs.  However, officials said that states and utilities do not consider climate  change resilience consistently in planning and designing of projects  that use financial assistance from FEMA. Specifically, according to  FEMA officials, funding through the Public Assistance Program and  the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is limited to states and localities  with a presidentially-declared disaster and generally is not provided  for projects that incorporate climate resilience into their planning and  design. In addition, according to FEMA officials, states and localities  have discretion over the projects they choose to submit for funding  and FEMA cannot require them to incorporate climate resilience into  the planning and construction of projects that states fund without a  change to program requirements.
HUD. HUD provides grants to states and local governments through  its Community Development Block Grant program to fund housing;  economic development; neighborhood revitalization; and other  community development activities, including drinking water and  wastewater infrastructure. In addition, HUD can provide grants that  can be used for reconstruction of drinking water and wastewater  infrastructure to help communities recover from presidentially  declared disasters through its Community Development Block Grant  program. According to HUD officials, the agency has taken action to  encourage states and local governments to incorporate climate  resilience planning in the projects they fund after disasters. Officials  also said that HUD provides guidance on how financial assistance  requirements for states and entitlement communities can be waived  so that states and communities can use Community Development  Block Grant funding for disaster recovery and resilience in  presidentially-declared disaster areas. In addition, in 2016, HUD  finalized rules requiring states and localities to consider incorporating  resilience to natural hazard risks and climate change into their  planning documents for Community Development Block Grant funding  in low- and moderate-income communities. However, officials said  that states do not consider climate change resilience consistently  when planning and designing projects using financial assistance from  HUD. Specifically, according to HUD officials, the agency can only  directly provide financial assistance to projects that enhance climate  resilience using Community Development Block Grant-Disaster  Recovery Grants if climate change resilience is specified in disaster  relief appropriations language. Further, states and localities have  discretion regarding whether to incorporate climate resilience into their  project applications, and HUD cannot require them to incorporate  climate resilience into the planning of projects that receive financial  assistance, according to HUD officials.
USDA. USDA’s Rural Utilities Service provides grants and loans for  drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater projects in rural areas— defined as any area not in a city or town with a population in excess of  10,000 inhabitants. According to USDA officials, the agency has  promoted climate resilience planning through its Water and Waste  Disposal Program by requiring small and rural utilities to complete  planning and vulnerability assessments for natural disasters. In  addition, USDA officials said the agency has collaborated with EPA to  develop guidance and training through the Sustainable Rural and  Small Utility Management Initiative to help small and rural utilities  create plans for improving their sustainability, including planning to  help make the utilities resilient to potential climate impacts. According  to USDA officials, utilities have discretion in whether to incorporate  climate resilience into their Water and Waste Disposal project  applications, and USDA cannot under its current regulations require  them to incorporate climate resilience into the planning and  construction of projects that receive financial assistance. As a result,  according to officials, utilities do not consider climate resilience  consistently when planning and designing projects that receive  financial assistance from USDA.

		Most Selected Experts Said That Requiring Climate Resilience in Federal Projects Would Help Address Future Climate Impacts and Limit Future Federal Fiscal Exposure

According to most selected experts, requiring the consideration of climate  risks in projects that receive financial assistance will help limit the future  fiscal exposure of the federal government and help enhance the climate  resilience of drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Specifically,  most of the experts we interviewed said that a federal requirement that  potential climate impacts be considered and, if necessary, incorporated  into the design of all new drinking water and wastewater infrastructure  projects that receive federal financial assistance, should be a high or very  high priority for the federal government. Several of the experts said that  this option would be advantageous because it could help ensure more  effective and efficient use of federal dollars on drinking water and  wastewater infrastructure. For example, several experts said that this  option would help ensure that infrastructure funded by the federal  government incorporated climate risks during the planning stages, helping  avoid expensive retrofits or the abandonment of federally funded  infrastructure that was not climate resilient. Several other experts said  that such a federal requirement could help make consideration of future  climate risks to enhance resilience a standard industry practice within the  drinking water and wastewater sector.
Several of the selected utilities said that a federal requirement for  potential climate impacts to be considered and, if necessary, incorporated  into the design of all new drinking water and wastewater infrastructure  projects that receive federal financial assistance, would be moderately to  extremely effective in helping utilities enhance their resilience. These  selected utilities also said that it would be at least moderately feasible to  implement. Several of the selected utilities are already required to  consider some potential climate risks in the planning and design of their  drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. For example, according to  representatives from the Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer  Department, Miami-Dade County adopted an ordinance requiring that  potential climate risks be considered in the design of county-funded  infrastructure. According to the same officials, this requirement has  shifted the culture of the Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer  Department to emphasize potential future climate change risks in the  planning and design of all of the county’s drinking water and wastewater  infrastructure. Representatives from a few selected utilities also said that  a requirement could make it easier to access federal financial assistance  programs for projects that enhance climate resilience.
Several selected experts cautioned that many utilities do not have the  climate information and technical capacity to carry out such requirements  or that the uncertainty of the available climate science would make it  difficult to implement for some utilities. In addition, several experts said  that such a requirement may force utilities with limited funding to prioritize  planning and investment in projects to improve climate resilience over  more pressing concerns, such as repairing and replacing damaged or  obsolete infrastructure. Several selected utilities said that it will be difficult  to implement these new requirements, but added that additional technical  and financial assistance could help. For example, representatives from  Cottage Grove Public Utilities said that the federal government will need  to provide additional financial and technical assistance opportunities for  small and medium-sized public utilities that do not have the capacity to  plan, implement, and fund large climate resilience projects.
However, if the federal agencies do not require the incorporation of  climate resilience into the projects that receive financial assistance, they  may continue to fund drinking water and wastewater infrastructure  projects that may be damaged or incapacitated by future floods, drought,  water quality problems, and other climate change impacts. This increases  the risk that critical infrastructure will not be well protected and drinking  water and wastewater utilities will not be able to continue operations that  provide critical public health and environmental services to the public.
EPA and other federal, state, local, and sector-level officials, recognizing  the need to incorporate climate resilience into drinking water and  wastewater infrastructure, have taken action to promote climate resilience  but generally do not require it to be incorporated in these projects.  Specifically, the 2017 Roadmap calls for the Water Government  Coordinating Council and the Water Sector Coordinating Council to  promote eligibility criteria for financial assistance programs to support  resilience activities by 2019. In addition, in a 2019 report, EPA’s  Environmental Finance Advisory Board recommended that EPA create a  coordination group to set priorities and reduce gaps in funding predisaster  resilience for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, and that EPA  consider expanding the state revolving fund program to include financial  assistance for flooding and storm-related damages. Further, the National  Mitigation Investment Strategy, issued in draft in January 2018, and  finalized in August 2019, states that successful mitigation of natural  hazard risks requires shared priorities, consistent approaches, aligned  funding, expanded incentives, and coordination between the federal  government and nonfederal partners. It also states that the federal  government and nonfederal partners should look at risk and resilience  consistently by, for example, having similar requirements for assessing  risk and rebuilding for long-term resilience. It emphasizes the need to  focus on critical infrastructure in communities, such as drinking water and  wastewater infrastructure.
Incorporating climate resilience likely decreases the risk that water and  wastewater infrastructure, some of which is paid for with federal financial  assistance, will fail during extreme events. According to the National  Research Council, as the climate changes and historical patterns—in  particular, those related to extreme weather events—no longer provide  reliable predictions of the future, infrastructure designs may  underestimate the climate-related impacts to infrastructure over its design  life, which can range as long as 50 to 100 years. In April 2013, we  reported that according to one set of commonly used design standards,  wastewater treatment plant components are typically designed for 25-,  50-, or 100-year storms. We reported that changes in characteristics of  strong storms—for instance, a storm that historically occurred once every  100 years may occur every 50 years in the future—could cause  wastewater management systems to be overwhelmed more frequently.
Incorporating climate resilience into drinking water and wastewater  infrastructure projects also likely decreases the risk that the federal  government will need to pay to repair and replace damaged facilities. In  our previous work, we said that building resilience can help reduce the  federal fiscal exposure. As we reported in April 2013, such resilience  means reducing potential future losses rather than waiting for an event to  occur and paying for recovery afterward. We said that enhancing  resilience can create additional up-front costs, but can also reduce  potential future damage from climate-related events that—given expected  budget pressures—would otherwise constrain federal programs. In 2018,  the National Institute of Building Sciences found that every dollar spent on  infrastructure hazard mitigation to enhance resilience to wind- and  flooding-related disasters resulted in 7 to 8 dollars in avoided future  losses, respectively. This potential can be considered in light of recent  costs that the federal government incurred to address losses. In  particular, from fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2018, we estimate  that FEMA’s Public Assistance program and HUD’s Community  Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery Grants have obligated at  least $2.3 billion and at least $1.4 billion, respectively, in federal disaster  recovery funding on drinking water and wastewater infrastructure-related  projects.

	Conclusions

Drinking water and wastewater utilities face challenges in using climate  information to identify actions that they can take to enhance their climate  resilience. At the moment, utilities obtain technical assistance and use  climate information from a mix of sources and that assistance is not  organized to help ensure more comprehensive coverage of the more than  70,000 drinking water and wastewater utilities across the nation. As  designated lead agency for the resilience and security of the drinking  water and wastewater sector and as chair of the Water Sector  Government Coordinating Council, EPA is tasked with coordinating  federal and sector efforts to provide the information and assistance that state and local decision makers—including utilities—need to enhance  their climate resilience. The councils have identified a number of actions  to support the drinking water and wastewater sector, but EPA, other  federal agencies, and the water and wastewater sector, have not  assessed how they could organize a network of technical assistance  providers to effectively provide the assistance that utilities need to  enhance their resilience to climate change. By identifying existing  technical assistance providers and engaging them in a network to help  drinking water and wastewater utilities consider climate resilience in the  planning and design of projects on an ongoing basis, EPA, as chair of the  Water Sector Government Coordinating Council, would have more  reasonable assurance that climate information was effectively exchanged  among federal agencies and infrastructure owners and operators.
In recognition of the federal interest in protecting the health and economic  benefits that clean and safe water provide, federal programs provide  funding to support drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. In 2013,  Presidential Policy Directive 21 identified the water and wastewater sector  as critical infrastructure, with important implications for protecting and  investing in that sector. Federal agencies such as EPA, FEMA, HUD, and  USDA provide financial assistance to help ensure the long-term success  of drinking water and wastewater utilities. These agencies have taken  action to promote climate resilient infrastructure projects with the financial  assistance they provide, but their abilities to ensure that projects receiving  financial assistance are resilient are limited. To enable agencies to further  drive climate resilient investments by drinking water and wastewater  utilities, changes would be needed to programs that EPA, FEMA, HUD,  and USDA administer to require that climate resilience be incorporated  into planning for projects that receive federal financial assistance. Such  changes could help ensure that drinking water and wastewater  infrastructure projects that receive federal financial assistance adequately  address risks from climate change and ensure that utilities carry out their  critical operations. Such changes could also help limit the fiscal exposure  to the federal government for future recovery costs.

	Matter for Congressional Consideration

We are making the following matter for congressional consideration:  Congress should consider requiring that climate resilience be  incorporated in the planning of all drinking water and wastewater projects  that receive federal financial assistance from programs that EPA, FEMA,  HUD, and USDA administer. (Matter for Consideration 1)

	Recommendations for Executive Action

We are making one recommendation to EPA:  The Director of Water Security of EPA, as Chair of the Water Sector  Government Coordinating Council, should work with the council to identify  existing technical assistance providers and engage these providers in a  network to help drinking water and wastewater utilities incorporate climate  resilience into their projects and planning on an ongoing basis.  (Recommendation 1)

	Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to EPA, DHS, HUD, NOAA, and USDA  for review and comment. EPA provided written comments, which are  reproduced in appendix VIII. The other four agencies did not provide  comments on our draft report. EPA and USDA provided technical  comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
In its written comments, EPA neither agreed nor disagreed with our  recommendation that the Administrator, as Chair of the Water Sector  Government Coordinating Council, should work with the council to identify  existing technical assistance providers and engage these providers in a  network to help drinking water and wastewater utilities incorporate climate  resilience into their projects and planning on an ongoing basis. The  agency noted in its technical comments that the Director of Water  Security is the chair of the Water Sector Council, not the administrator.  We made this change in the report.
In its written response, EPA made two points related to the  recommendation. First, it stated that it will, consistent with our  recommendation, continue to work with its wide-ranging, existing  technical assistance providers and coordinate with its stakeholders to  identify additional providers as applicable. We agree with this approach  and highlighted several of these efforts in our report. For example, EPA  noted that it provides annual training to over 5,000 water utilities, state  officials, and federal emergency responders on how to become more  resilient to natural or manmade incidents that could endanger water and  wastewater services.
Second, in response to the part of the recommendation that EPA engage  the providers in a network, the agency noted that states serve as a  coordinating entity under its Small System Training and Technical  Assistant grants. Further, EPA also noted that the providers work with  states to identify the systems in greatest need of assistance and identify  the training topics of greatest need for small public water systems. We  agree that this could be a helpful approach, but note that EPA remained  silent on how it plans to work with the states and the water and  wastewater sector to develop a network of technical assistance providers.  Our report showed that utilities obtain technical assistance from a number  of different sources and that they could benefit from a larger network with  continuous technical assistance. The Water Sector Coordinating Council  functions as a forum to coordinate members of existing networks, and to  ensure they have the most current and relevant information as they  provide assistance to utilities. As EPA works with its wide-ranging  technical assistance providers, consistent with our recommendation, we  would encourage it to also work with the Water Sector Coordinating  Council to ensure the coordination of the different networks that exist in  the water and wastewater sector.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees; the Administrator of the Environmental  Protection Agency; and the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Housing  and Urban Development, Commerce, and Agriculture. In addition, the  report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff members who made key contributions to  this report are listed in appendix IX.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of our review were to examine (1) the potential impacts of  climate change and the effects of these impacts on drinking water and  wastewater infrastructure; (2) technical assistance selected federal  agencies provided to selected utilities to help make drinking water and  wastewater infrastructure more resilient to the impacts of climate change,  and options experts identified for providing additional technical assistance  to utilities; and (3) financial assistance federal agencies provided to  selected utilities to help make drinking water and wastewater  infrastructure more resilient to the impacts of climate change, and options  experts identified for providing additional financial assistance to utilities.
For the first objective, we reviewed the Fourth National Climate  Assessment; the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Adaptation  Strategies Guide for Water Utilities, Climate Resilience Evaluation and  Awareness Tool Methodology Guide, and Climate Scenarios Projection  Map, and the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit, which the Department of  Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)  manages and hosts with oversight from the U.S. Global Change  Research Program. Based on our review of these sources, we first  identified different categories of potential climate change impacts, and  how those impacts may vary in the different climate regions identified in  the Fourth National Climate Assessment.
For both the second and third objectives, we reviewed the efforts of and  interviewed five federal agencies and 15 drinking water and wastewater  utilities. We reviewed our previous reports to identify agencies that  provide technical assistance or financial assistance, or both, to drinking  water and wastewater utilities and identified five agencies: EPA, NOAA,   the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Federal Emergency  Management Agency (FEMA), the Department of Housing and Urban  Development (HUD), and the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Rural  Utilities Service.
For the second and third objectives, we also selected a nongeneralizable  sample of 15 drinking water and wastewater utilities in 13 communities  using a stratified purposeful sampling approach. We selected utilities to  obtain variation in their size and climate region to capture similarities and  differences among utilities. We classified utilities into small, medium, and  large utilities based on the sizes of the populations that they serve. We  defined small utilities (serving populations of 10,000 or less), medium  utilities (serving populations of 10,001 to 999,999), and large utilities  (serving populations of 1 million or more) for this report to capture utilities  with the greatest resources available for climate resilience efforts. In order  to ensure geographic diversity, we selected small, medium, and large  utilities from different climate regions identified in the Fourth National  Climate Assessment. Because this was a nonprobability sample, the  findings related to the 15 utilities cannot be generalized to all drinking  water and wastewater utilities but provide illustrative examples of how the  selected utilities used federal technical assistance and financial  assistance.
Further, for the second and third objectives, we selected 10 experts in the  climate change and disaster fields to interview about options for providing  additional technical and financial assistance to drinking water and  wastewater utilities. To identify experts on the resilience of water  infrastructure to climate change, we searched Elsevier’s Scopus  database for peer-reviewed articles published from January 2003 through  September 2018 searching titles, abstracts, and keywords for “drinking  water” or “wastewater” in close proximity to terms such as “infrastructure,”  “climate change,” and “resiliency.” We identified approximately 300  studies from this search, identified the relevant studies from that group,  and then found an additional eight studies from their citations. We  reviewed the abstracts of these studies and found 96 that were within the  scope of our objectives. To develop a list of potential experts, we  extracted the names of the authors of these studies and the names of  authors cited in these studies using the Python programming language  and the Scopus Application Programming Interface.
Next, we used statistical software to calculate the number of times that  each author cited every other author. Using these calculations, we  arrayed the authors into a network graph, in which authors who frequently  cited each other were situated closer together and authors who did not  cite each other were situated further apart. We analyzed this network  using social network analysis techniques. Specifically, to measure each  author’s prominence in the network, we calculated the number of times  that each author was cited in the articles written by other authors in the  network. To divide the network into groups, we used an algorithm known  as hierarchical clustering. This algorithm allowed us to identify groups of  authors who cited each other frequently and who cited authors in the rest  of the network infrequently. We sorted authors by group and by the  number of times they were cited. For the most frequently cited authors in  the largest groups in the network, we examined biographical details and  publication details via web searches, such as their geographic location  and the relevance of their publications to our research topic. We selected  a final list of 15 frequently cited experts who were primarily from the  largest clusters in the network, who were based in North America, whose research was topically relevant, and who were still active in the field.  Eight of these experts agreed to be interviewed and we included them in  our final sample. We supplemented this list with two experts who served  as lead authors for the water chapter of the Fourth National Climate  Assessment. While these 10 experts are prominent researchers and  correspond to a range of major fields of research on the topic, their views  do not represent the views of all experts on the resilience of drinking  water and wastewater infrastructure to climate change.
To examine the first part of the second objective, the technical assistance  selected federal agencies provided to selected utilities, we reviewed  relevant laws, regulations, and planning guidance about programs that  can provide technical assistance to drinking water and wastewater utilities  to help enhance climate resilience for each selected federal agency. We  also interviewed federal officials at each agency. To examine the first part  of the third objective, the financial assistance selected federal agencies  provided to selected utilities, we reviewed project eligibility criteria and  appropriation amounts for EPA’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund,  Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, and Water Infrastructure Finance  and Innovation Act Programs; HUD’s Community Development Block  Grant Program and Community Development Block Grant-Disaster  Recovery Fund; and USDA’s Water and Wastewater Disposal Program  for fiscal years 2011 through 2018. We also interviewed federal officials at  each agency.
As part of analyzing the federal financial assistance to drinking water and  wastewater utilities, we estimated FEMA’s pre- and post-disaster  spending to help such utilities recover from natural disasters. To identify  federal disaster recovery and hazard mitigation obligations on drinking  water and wastewater infrastructure, we analyzed federal financial  assistance that FEMA’s Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Pre- disaster Mitigation Programs provide for disaster recovery for drinking  water and wastewater infrastructure. Specifically, using a list of search  terms associated with drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, we  queried FEMA’s disaster recovery spending database to identify a list of  drinking water and wastewater infrastructure disaster recovery and  hazard mitigation projects funded from fiscal years 2011 through 2018.  After we queried FEMA’s disaster recovery spending database, we  manually reviewed records from a stratified sample to ensure that each  project was related to water and wastewater infrastructure. We reviewed  all 25 records with the highest obligated amounts, 15 records in which a  project was associated with more than one site, and 35 records in which a  project was associated with just one site.
We chose this sample design to ensure that we were capturing projects  with the highest dollar amounts as well as all other projects, while also  ensuring that if one site in a project was water related, the rest of the sites  under the project were also water related (manual review showed that if  one site in a project was water related, 98 percent of the other sites in the  project were also water related). After manual review, we generated an  estimate of total obligated funds from the ratio of number of projects that  we reviewed that were related to water and wastewater infrastructure to  the total number of projects in our sample.
The estimate we used was the lower bound of a 95 percent confidence  interval. We chose this estimate in order to give a conservative estimate  of the amount that FEMA’s public assistance program has obligated. The  relative error was 0.07. To assess the reliability of the disaster recovery  obligations data, we (1) performed electronic testing for errors in accuracy  and completeness, (2) reviewed related documentation about the data  and the system that produced them, (3) interviewed agency officials  knowledgeable about the data, and (4) worked closely with agency  officials to identify and resolve data discrepancies before conducting our  analyses. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of our reporting objectives.
To examine what technical assistance and financial assistance selected  drinking water and wastewater utilities used for the second and third  objectives, we provided a short questionnaire and interviewed utility  representatives from the 15 selected drinking water and wastewater  utilities to understand what technical and financial assistance they used to  enhance their climate resilience for fiscal years 2011 through 2018. In the  questionnaire and interviews, we discussed their efforts to plan for climate  resilience and the technical and financial assistance they used for such  efforts, which could include the five agencies we selected to review or  other federal and nonfederal entities we did not review, but knew could  potentially be sources of technical and financial assistance for utilities  based on our prior work. Specifically, the federal agencies we did not  review, but included in our questionnaire were: NOAA, the Department of  Defense’s U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of the  Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation).
To examine the second parts of the second and third objectives, the  options experts identified for providing additional technical and financial  assistance to utilities, we conducted semistructured interviews with the 10  climate change and disaster resilience experts. To develop the  semistructured interview documents, we assessed the content of the 96  articles identified in our literature review to develop a list of actions that  the federal government could take to make drinking water and  wastewater infrastructure more resilient to the effects of climate change.  The articles used to develop this list of actions were identified by  searching resources such as Agricola, ProQuest’s Environmental  Databases, Policyfile, Harvard’s Think Tank Search, and Scopus. We  searched for both peer-reviewed articles and reports from nonprofits and  think tanks published between January 2003 and September 2018  searching titles, abstracts and keywords for “water” in close proximity to  “climate change,” “utilities,” and terms such as “project,” “program,”  “policy,” or “recommendation.” We asked the 10 experts about the list of  actions during our interviews (see table 2).
We conducted semistructured interviews with the 10 selected experts and  asked the experts to rate the effectiveness of the nine actions we  provided for making drinking water and wastewater infrastructure more  resilient to the impacts of climate change, describe the advantages and  disadvantages of each action, and describe how the actions could be  implemented. We also asked experts to rate the administrative feasibility  and cost of the actions. Finally, we asked the experts if any additional  actions should be added to our list.
We then analyzed the results of our interviews to identify five options to  provide technical assistance and developed a follow-up questionnaire.  The questionnaire asked the 10 selected experts to rate the effectiveness  of the five options for providing additional technical assistance, describe  the advantages and disadvantages of each option, and describe how the  options could be implemented (see table 3). We also asked experts to  rate the overall effectiveness, administrative feasibility, and cost of the  options. We also requested written responses from the 15 selected  utilities on the 5 technical assistance options and the 4 financial  assistance options identified in our interviews with experts.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2017 to January 2020  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Examples of the Most-Relevant Potential Climate Change Impacts and Their Potential Effects on Drinking Water Utilities by Region

Table 4 corresponds with figure 2 in the report, which is an interactive  figure and contains the text for drinking water utilities that is not  accessible to readers of print copies of this report. As readers scroll over  the water-drop icons in the figure, separate pop-up boxes appear  describing specific regional impacts.

Appendix III: Examples of the Most-Relevant Potential Climate Change Impacts and Their Potential Effects on Wastewater Utilities

Table 5 corresponds with figure 2 in the report, which is an interactive  figure and contains the text for wastewater utilities that is not accessible  to readers of print copies of this report. As readers scroll over the water- drop icons in the figure, separate pop-up boxes appear describing  specific regional impacts.

Appendix IV: Technical Assistance Providers That Selected Drinking Water and Wastewater Utilities Used

Table 6 provides additional information on the selected drinking water and  wastewater utilities and the sources of technical assistance they used for  climate resilience planning for fiscal years 2011 through 2018.

Appendix V: Federal Programs That Provide Technical Assistance

The following federal programs have the potential to help drinking water  and wastewater utilities, in particular smaller utilities that do not have the  resources to conduct climate risk assessments and plan for measures to  help make their drinking water and wastewater infrastructure more  resilient to climate change impacts.
Several of the federal efforts we reviewed provide general assistance with  planning and operating drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.  Specifically:
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Environmental  Finance Centers. The Environmental Finance Centers provide  targeted technical assistance to, and partner with states and the  private sector to help manage the costs of environmental financing.  Environmental Finance Centers can provide technical assistance for  financing drinking water and wastewater infrastructure and its  operations and maintenance.
EPA’s Training and Technical Assistance for Small Systems  Grants. EPA’s Training and Technical Assistance to Small Systems  grants provide funding to nonprofit organizations to provide training  and technical assistance to small public water systems, small  wastewater systems, and private well owners, located in urban and  rural communities in the U.S. and its territories. According to EPA  officials, training and technical assistance to small systems facing  drought, flooding, and other weather-related challenges is an eligible  activity for the grants.
Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Rural Water and Wastewater  Technical Assistance and Training Program. USDA’s Rural Water  and Wastewater Technical Assistance and Training Program provides  grants to nonprofits such as the National Rural Water Association and  the Rural Community Assistance Partnership to provide training and  technical assistance to small and rural utilities for operating,  managing, and financing drinking water and wastewater  infrastructure.
USDA’s Rural Water and Wastewater Circuit Rider Program.
USDA contracts with a qualified national organization, through its  Circuit Rider program, to provide technical assistance to rural water  and wastewater systems to provide technical assistance to rural  utilities for operating, managing, and financing water and wastewater  infrastructure. Circuit riders also provide critical assistance in disaster  response and recovery. The circuit rider contract was awarded to the  National Rural Water Association in fiscal year 2019.
Other federal efforts help decision makers use climate information in  existing planning processes. Specifically:
USDA Climate Hubs. USDA established regional Climate Hubs to  deliver science-based knowledge and practical information to farmers,  ranchers, and forest landowners to support decision-making related to  climate change.
Department of the Interior’s (Interior) Landscape Conservation  Cooperatives. Interior developed a network of collaborative  Landscape Conservation Cooperatives composed of federal, state,  local, and tribal governments; nongovernmental organizations;  universities; and interested public and private organizations to,  manage large landscapes such as national forests, grasslands, and  wetlands. As part of this program, the groups develop and provide the  science and technical expertise needed to apply climate data in  natural resources decision-making.
U.S. Geological Survey’s Climate Adaptation Science Centers.
Climate Adaptation Science Centers partner with natural and cultural  resource managers to provide science that helps fish, wildlife,  ecosystems, and the communities they support adapt to climate  change by, among other things, providing climate, water, and  ecosystem information to decision makers.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA)
Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) Program.  NOAA’s RISA program supports a network of 11 regional research  teams that work with public and private decision makers to identify  and provide specific climate information and models to identify risks  and adaptation options to increase resilience to climate variability and  change. One area of emphasis for the RISA teams is conducting  research on climate and water management issues while engaging  with a range of water management organizations, including some  water utilities.
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). NCAR carries  out interdisciplinary research on adaptation to climate change by  generating scenarios of projected climate change, developing  scientific tools and methods for analyzing current and future  vulnerability, and conducting integrated analyses of climate change  impacts and adaptation. An important component of NCAR’s program  is the integration of decision makers and users of climate information,  including water utilities, into its research activities. NCAR provides the  atmospheric research community in academia, government, and the  private sector with the shared resources necessary to conduct their  research.

Appendix VI: Examples of Ongoing and Completed Drinking Water and Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects to Enhance Climate Resilience

Table 7 presents examples of drinking water and wastewater capital  improvement projects to enhance climate resilience, according to utility  representatives, from fiscal years 2011 through 2018.

Appendix VII: Types of Financial Assistance Used by Selected Drinking Water and Wastewater Utilities on Capital Improvement Projects to Enhance Climate Resilience

Table 8 presents additional information on financial assistance used by  utilities we reviewed for capital improvement projects to enhance their  climate resilience for fiscal years 2011 through 2018.

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

	GAO Contact

	Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Susan Iott (Assistant Director),  Micah McMillan (Analyst-in-Charge), Jim Ashley, Mark Braza, Colleen  Candrl, Caitlin Cusati, John Delicath, David Dornisch, Kathryn Godfrey,  Holly Halifax, Karen Howard, Rob Letzler, Jon Melhus, Patricia Moye,  Eve Nealon, Sam Portnow, Dan Royer, Kiki Theodoropoulos, Joe  Thompson, Seyda Wentworth, and Melissa Wolf provided key  contributions to this report.