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. 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. 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. 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. 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—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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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) 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) 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Human health and well-being require clean and safe water, according to the Water Research Foundation. The Fourth National Climate Assessment states that the potential impacts of extreme weather events from climate change will vary in severity and type and can have a negative effect on drinking water and wastewater utilities. GAO's previous work on climate change and resilience to extreme weather and disasters has shown how the federal government can provide information and technical and financial assistance to promote and enhance climate resilience. In 2015, GAO reported that enhancing climate resilience means taking action to reduce potential future losses by planning and preparing for climate-related impacts, such as extreme rainfall. This report examines federal technical and financial assistance to utilities for enhancing climate resilience, and options experts identified for providing additional assistance, among other things. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance from four federal agencies—EPA, FEMA, HUD, and USDA—and interviewed federal officials, representatives from 15 water utilities selected for diversity of size and geography, and 10 experts selected to represent different views. Four federal agencies—the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Agriculture (USDA)—provide technical and financial assistance (e.g., loans and grants), to drinking and wastewater utilities. Technical assistance. EPA provides technical assistance to drinking water and wastewater utilities to enhance their infrastructure's resilience to climate change. However, according to EPA officials, EPA's program is small and cannot assist utilities nationwide. All of the selected experts GAO interviewed stated that utilities need additional technical assistance on an ongoing basis to manage climate risks, and most experts said that organizing a network of existing technical assistance providers, including federal and state agencies, universities, and industry groups, would be needed to provide such assistance. Under a presidential policy directive, EPA is to work to enable efficient information exchanges among federal agencies and to help inform planning and operational decisions for water and wastewater infrastructure. By identifying existing technical assistance providers and engaging them in a network to help utilities incorporate climate resilience into their infrastructure projects on an ongoing basis, EPA would have better assurance that climate information was effectively exchanged among federal agencies and utilities. Financial assistance. Federal agencies have taken some actions to promote climate resilience when providing financial assistance for water infrastructure projects, but agencies do not consistently include the consideration of climate resilience when funding such projects. Most selected experts suggested that federal agencies should require that climate information be considered in the planning of water infrastructure projects as a condition of providing financial assistance. Moreover, representatives from several utilities said that such a requirement could be an effective and feasible way to help enhance utilities' climate resilience. A requirement would ensure that utilities consider climate resilience in planning for water infrastructure projects and potentially limit future fiscal exposures. For example, from fiscal years 2011 through 2018, the federal government provided at least $3.6 billion in disaster recovery financial assistance for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure related projects (see figure). GAO recommends that EPA identify technical assistance providers and engage them in a network to help water utilities incorporate climate resilience into infrastructure projects. Also, Congress should consider requiring that climate resilience be considered in planning for federally funded water infrastructure projects. EPA neither agreed nor disagreed. GAO believes the recommendation is still warranted.