Adapting to water policy shifts

Adaptability is key amid regulatory questions 

With conflicting priorities amplified by their chronically aging infrastructure, the water and wastewater industries prefer things to be linear operationally when it comes to navigating the sea of regulations. Through the ebbs and flows, the sector has proven resilient. 

The Black & Veatch 2025 Water Report — based on a survey of 680 water sector stakeholders — finds the industry fragmented with a plethora of competing priorities watching and waiting for policy changes that could influence operations and complicate planning. Things like water quality standards involving contaminant removal, climate change strategies and sorely needed infrastructure upgrades. And for the most part, the survey results indicate that most utilities don’t intend to make changes, at least for now. 

How conflicting priorities impact water infrastructure 

As Smart Water magazine put it last November, “anticipated deregulation could bring short-term financial relief for water utilities by reducing compliance costs and easing federal oversight,” with benefits including greater flexibility by utilities to redirect resources to other priorities. But that deregulation may force utilities to weigh short-term cost benefits against possible environmental and public health risks. 

Survey respondents showed a strong commitment to existing plans, with half saying they would not make any adjustments if regulations were relaxed. More than one in five said they’d shift money to other priorities, while 9% said they would slow the pace of capital improvement projects. (Figure 6).  

What changing regulation means for utility planning

In recent years, few regulatory topics have drawn more attention than those meant to rid drinking water of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) — or those “forever chemicals” that don’t degrade or do so slowly in the environment and can remain in a person’s bloodstream for life. In April 2024, the EPA issued its final National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for six forever chemicals, and drinking water utilities must comply by April 26, 2029. Design, bidding and construction timelines for PFAS treatment projects frequently require in excess of three years, leaving utilities a short window to implement a solution. 

In January, Black & Veatch announced its selection by the American Water Works Association to develop nationwide guidance for pilot testing treatment of PFAS. The goal: bring together minimum requirements and provide best practices for water utilities, regulators and engineers to equip the industry with the information needed to make informed decisions about PFAS treatment projects in a timely manner. 

Survey Findings on PFAS Strategy Shifts

Naturally, the water industry’s eyes remain affixed on Capitol Hill for any policy changes involving PFAS. Some 55% of survey respondents say their utility or company has a program to address PFAS challenges in accordance with current regulations. But if those regulations are modified, roughly half of respondents (49%) say it’ll impact their existing approach to addressing those headwinds. One in five said it would have no effect, while one-third said they’re unsure (Figure 7). Long story short: those with PFAS programs already in place appear likely to tailor it to the new regulation, whether it’s more stringent or not. 

Regulation as a catalyst for innovation

When asked about their utility’s greatest limiting factor for addressing PFAS, the survey’s top response was “regulatory uncertainty” (32%), followed by “budgetary and/or rate payer considerations” (24%). With no crystal ball, the industry is locked in a waiting game. 

Regulations: stubbornly on the mind 

Across the spectrum of this report’s critical topics, thoughts about regulations frequently are part of the buzz:  

When asked why their utility expects to add a new process or technology to their drinking water facilities, respondents’ top answer was “new regulation” (56%), followed by improvement of distribution water quality (44%) and enhance resiliency (40%). On the wastewater side, “enhance resilience” (49%) took the top spot, followed closely by “new regulation” and “nutrient removal” (both 47%). 

When asked what the greatest limiting factor in addressing nutrients in their utility’s wastewater, respondents’ top answers were “budgetary and/or rate payer considerations” (31%) and “regulatory uncertainty” (30%). Regulatory limits can dictate the cost for wastewater treatment upgrades and has an impact on ratepayers. 

Looking ahead: what comes next?

Twenty-eight percent of respondents say the adoption of a “polluter pays” approach would impact their PFAS or water reuse strategy.  

As the water and wastewater sectors watch and wait, positive signs abound that they remain committed to their stewardship of the resources they’re obligated to nurture, ready to navigate regulatory uncertainty. Challenges and opportunities will present themselves with any shifts in policy oversight, making it incumbent upon those in the industry to adapt and accept in continuing to fulfill their mandate to provide safe, reliable water services.