Water Supply & Irrigation Systems – Market Dynamics and Outlook 2025, U.S

Loan Analytics, LLC
2 days ago
34 min read

Executive Summary

The U.S. Water Supply & Irrigation Systems industry (NAICS 22131) is a $121.5 billion market in 2025, providing critical drinking water and agricultural irrigation services nationwide. After steady growth (~3.7% annual CAGR from 2020–2025), industry revenue is stabilizing with a modest 0.7% increase in 2025. The sector’s performance is shaped by aging infrastructure, climate change pressures, and rising regulatory standards, driving significant investment needs. Climate change–induced droughts and extreme weather are straining water supplies and distribution networks, especially in the Western and Southern states. At the same time, new regulatory mandates – such as stringent limits on PFAS “forever chemicals” in drinking water – demand costly treatment upgrades. On the upside, technological innovations are creating opportunities for efficiency and growth: smart irrigation systems can dramatically reduce water waste, desalination projects offer new supply in drought-prone regions, and nanotechnology is enabling advanced water purification. Sustainability initiatives are accelerating, with federal funding (e.g. the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) earmarking billions for water infrastructure upgrades (including lead pipe replacements and PFAS remediation). The industry remains highly fragmented, comprised of tens of thousands of local water systems, which means even the largest private operator holds only about a 3% market share. Major investor-owned utilities like American Water Works are expanding via acquisitions, while public municipal utilities continue to serve the majority of Americans. Financially, water utilities face the dual challenge of financing capital-intensive projects and keeping rates affordable; most systems do not recover full costs via customer rates, contributing to an estimated $110 billion annual funding gap as of 2024. However, unprecedented federal investment (e.g. ~$69 billion from the infrastructure law) and low-interest loan programs (WIFIA, state revolving funds) are beginning to address these shortfalls. Overall, the outlook is one of cautious optimism: demand for water services will remain robust, and increasing climate resilience and regulatory compliance efforts are expected to drive sustained infrastructure spending and modernization across the industry.

Industry Overview

Market Size & Growth: The U.S. water supply and irrigation industry has steadily grown over the past decade, reaching an estimated $121.5 billion in revenue in 2025. Industry growth has averaged roughly 3.7% annually from 2020–2025, reflecting stable demand for essential water services. Notably, 2024 saw an unusually high revenue jump (~14.9% growth), likely due to post-pandemic infrastructure spending and rate adjustments. By 2025, growth normalized to about 0.7% as utilities reached revenue plateaus under rate-regulated models. Despite modest top-line growth, underlying capital investment needs are escalating, driven by aging assets and new regulatory requirements (discussed later).

Industry Structure: Water provision in the U.S. relies on an extensive but decentralized network of providers. There are over 148,000 independent water systems across the country, including ~50,000 community water systems (those serving year-round resident populations). The industry is highly fragmented – the vast majority are small, local systems – such that only 9% of community water systems supply nearly 80% of the population. Most Americans (about 89–95%) are served by public or municipal utilities, while only roughly 5–11% get water from investor-owned (private) companies. In other words, government-run city and regional water departments dominate delivery, whereas private water firms play a smaller but growing role.

Key Segments: The industry’s core activity is potable water supply for residential, commercial, and industrial use. This includes sourcing (from surface reservoirs, rivers, and aquifers), treatment to meet Safe Drinking Water Act standards, and distribution via vast pipe networks. The irrigation systems component primarily involves supplying water for agriculture and landscaping – often through local irrigation districts or canal systems – and overlaps with agricultural water management. Agriculture remains a major water consumer (approximately 118 billion gallons per day for crop irrigation in 2015), underscoring the importance of efficient irrigation practices for sustainability. Some utilities also engage in related services like wastewater treatment or reuse water provision, though those are typically categorized under separate NAICS codes.

Profitability & Costs: Many water utilities operate on a cost-recovery model rather than high profit margins, especially municipally owned systems that reinvest revenue. Even investor-owned water companies face regulated rate-setting that caps returns. As a result, operating profit margins are moderate (often in the 10–15% range for private utilities) and have been pressured by rising input costs. In recent years, utilities have seen sharp increases in operating expenses – electricity, treatment chemicals, and labor costs have all climbed. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) notes that only 20% of water utilities can fully cover their costs through rates charged to customers. This suggests widespread under-pricing of water or deferred maintenance, contributing to a nationwide infrastructure investment deficit. A 2024 analysis by McKinsey estimated an $110 billion funding gap in the water utility sector for 2024, nearly 60% of total needed spending, which could widen to $194 billion by 2030 absent corrective action. These figures reflect the significant capital upgrades required (e.g. main replacements, treatment plant updates) versus current spending levels.

Investment & Funding: To bridge this gap, water infrastructure spending is ramping up from both public and private sources. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021 (also known as the IIJA) injected roughly $69 billion in new federal funding for water infrastructure over five years. This includes targeted allocations such as $15 billion for lead pipe replacement, $10 billion for PFAS (contaminant) remediation, and a $14 billion boost to State Revolving Loan Funds (low-interest loan programs for water/wastewater projects). Disbursement of these funds is ongoing and expected to accelerate capital projects in the latter 2020s (though bureaucratic delays and inflation may temper the near-term impact). Additionally, the WIFIA program (Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) offers direct federal loans to large projects – as of early 2025, EPA’s WIFIA had closed 140 loans totaling $22 billion in credit assistance, helping finance $48 billion in projects nationwide. These loans have enabled projects like new treatment plants, storage reservoirs, and system resiliency upgrades at below-market interest rates, saving an estimated $7.5 billion for borrowers. State and local governments are also stepping up – for instance, California invested an unprecedented $16.3 billion from its general fund into multi-year water and climate programs in 2021–2022 (though some has since been trimmed with budget cuts). Private capital is increasingly eyeing water infrastructure as well, via public-private partnerships and acquisitions of municipal systems, given the stable long-term demand and new incentives.

Overall, the industry is in a phase of major reinvestment. Investors and water professionals anticipate that spending on aging pipes, treatment technology, and new supply projects will remain high throughout the decade, supported by a convergence of drivers: deferred maintenance coming due, climate adaptation needs, and stricter regulatory compliance.

Climate Change Impacts on Water Infrastructure and Supply

Overview: Climate change is emerging as a critical risk factor for the U.S. water supply industry. Changing precipitation patterns, rising temperatures, and more frequent extreme weather events are directly affecting water availability and infrastructure reliability. Droughts, heat waves, floods, and wildfires all threaten water systems in different ways. Investors and utilities are now factoring climate resilience into planning, as these impacts can significantly alter supply costs, capital needs, and operating risks.

Water Scarcity and Drought: Extended drought conditions, especially in the Western and Southwestern U.S., have led to declining surface water reserves and stressed aquifers. Research from Carnegie Mellon University analyzing over 40,000 water utilities found that by 2050, approximately 8,000 systems (~19% nationwide) are projected to experience at least moderate water supply stress due to climate change, primarily in the West and Southwest. These at-risk utilities serve about 100 million people. The Colorado River basin – a key water source for seven states including California and Arizona – has already seen historic low flows, prompting mandatory cutbacks for utilities and farmers. In Texas, state analyses warn of severe water shortages by 2030 if new supplies are not developed. Indeed, parts of Texas entered emergency “Stage 3” water restrictions in early 2025 as reservoir levels fell below 20% capacity. Such drought-induced supply crises are driving a wave of investments in supplemental sources (e.g. groundwater wells, desalination, water reuse) and aggressive conservation programs in these regions.

Extreme Heat and Wildfires: Rising temperatures amplify water scarcity by increasing evaporation and water demand. Nearly all U.S. water utilities will face higher extreme heat by mid-century; projections show 91% of systems could see local 5-day maximum temperatures rise >2 °C by 2050. Heat waves not only strain water supply (as people and agriculture use more water) but also tax infrastructure – pumps and treatment plants must work harder and are prone to overheating. Additionally, wildfires – intensified by heat and drought – pose contamination risks; severe fires in watersheds can lead to ash and toxin runoff into reservoirs (as seen after recent California fires), requiring costly treatment and occasionally forcing utilities to find alternate sources. Maintaining water quality in the face of such climate-driven events is an emerging challenge.

Floods and Storm Damage: Paradoxically, climate change also brings more intense rainfall events in many areas, leading to flooding that can damage water infrastructure. Coastal utilities are increasingly concerned with sea-level rise and storm surges causing saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers and damaging treatment facilities. Inland, heavier downpours can overwhelm drainage and water treatment systems. ASCE’s 2025 Infrastructure Report Card noted stormwater infrastructure is among the lowest-rated categories (graded “D”), with many communities lacking adequate flood control capacity. Water providers must invest in flood defenses and backup systems to maintain service during hurricanes and major storms – for example, hardening intakes, elevating pump stations, and installing redundant power supplies.

Energy and Operating Impacts: Climate change affects the energy-water nexus as well. Warmer conditions are expected to increase the energy required to treat and deliver water by ~6% on average by 2050 (more pumping from deeper or distant sources, and additional treatment needs). This raises operating costs and underscores the need for energy-efficient upgrades. At the same time, many utilities are pursuing renewable energy (solar at water treatment plants, for instance) to both cut costs and reduce carbon footprint.

Adaptation and Resilience Measures: To counter these threats, water agencies are implementing climate adaptation strategies. These include diversifying water supply sources (e.g. building desalination plants, expanding recycled water use, interconnecting regional systems for redundancy) and demand management (through conservation incentives and smart irrigation technologies – see next section). Infrastructure hardening is also a priority: utilities are updating design standards to handle larger flood events and higher peak demand, relocating or flood-proofing critical facilities, and investing in advanced monitoring to predict failures. The federal government has created dedicated programs to support these efforts, such as the EPA’s Drinking Water System Infrastructure Resilience program (funded by the IIJA) which provides grants to small utilities for climate adaptation projects. The infusion of $11.7 billion into the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds via IIJA is specifically intended to help systems boost resilience against climate hazards.

Policymakers increasingly recognize that climate resilience is not optional for water infrastructure. ASCE’s 2025 Report Card gave drinking water a “C-” grade and wastewater a “D+”, unchanged from 2021, indicating continued risk of deterioration under stress. Without adaptation, climate impacts could significantly degrade service reliability and financial stability (through emergency repairs and water shortages). Conversely, proactive investments now – in supply resilience and infrastructure upgrades – can mitigate long-run costs and safeguard water availability. Investors should expect climate risk considerations (drought contingency plans, infrastructure fortification, etc.) to feature prominently in utility capital programs going forward.

Technological Innovations Shaping the Industry

The water supply industry, often viewed as conservative, is experiencing a surge of innovation aimed at improving efficiency, water quality, and sustainability. Key technology trends include digital smart systems, advanced treatment processes, and new materials. These innovations are not only enhancing operations but also opening new market opportunities. Three areas in particular stand out: smart irrigation, desalination, and nanotechnology in water treatment.

The table below provides a comparative summary of these technologies and their impact:

Innovation	Description	Benefits & Impact
Smart Irrigation	IoT-based irrigation systems using sensors (soil moisture, weather) and AI controllers to optimize water use in agriculture and landscaping.	Reduces water waste significantly – 20–60% less water use compared to traditional flooding methods. Lowers energy and pumping costs; prevents overwatering (protects crop yields and landscaping). Growing market (~10.8% CAGR globally) as farms adopt precision agriculture. Vital for drought-prone regions to conserve scarce water.
Desalination	Technologies (primarily reverse osmosis membranes) that remove salt and impurities from seawater or brackish groundwater to produce fresh water.	Provides new drought-proof water supply for coastal and arid regions. The U.S. has 406 municipal desalination plants (mostly treating brackish water), with Florida (40%), California (14%), Texas (13%) hosting the majority. Modern plants feature energy recovery and improved membranes to cut energy use. Costs remain high, but innovation (e.g. optimized membrane systems in Texas’s upcoming 30 MGD plant) is lowering energy consumption. Desalination is increasingly seen as a strategic supply source despite brine disposal and cost challenges.
Nanotechnology	Application of nano-scale materials (e.g. nano-membranes, adsorbents, catalysts) in water treatment processes for filtration and contaminant removal.	Removes pollutants at the molecular level, enabling more effective treatment of micropollutants (PFAS, heavy metals, pathogens). Nano-engineered membranes (nanofiltration) can filter out very small contaminants with lower pressure drops, improving efficiency. Nano-adsorbents (like modified activated carbon or graphene-based materials) can capture trace organic chemicals and even break down contaminants via catalytic activity. Promises long-term cost reduction and enhanced water quality, though many applications are in pilot stages.

Smart Irrigation & Digital Water Management

Smart irrigation exemplifies how digital transformation is entering water supply on the demand side. By deploying connected sensors in fields or urban landscapes, and automating sprinkler or drip systems according to real-time data (soil moisture, weather forecasts, plant needs), water managers can minimize waste. Field trials have shown IoT-based irrigation can cut water usage by 20–60% relative to conventional methods, a staggering efficiency gain in agriculture, which accounts for the majority of U.S. consumptive water use. This not only preserves water in basins (extending supplies during drought) but also reduces energy consumption for pumping and distribution.

From an investment perspective, the smart irrigation market is growing rapidly – projections show a ~10% annual growth, reaching around $1.6 billion in global market size by 2025. Companies offering smart controllers, AI-based farm management platforms, and sensor devices are partnering with utilities and agricultural agencies to promote adoption. Notably, western states are encouraging farmers to use advanced irrigation tech via rebates and pilot programs, since conserved water can be redirected to urban use or environmental flows. Smart water metering is another digital tool being widely implemented by utilities to detect leaks and provide customers with usage analytics; this improves conservation and reduces non-revenue water (lost water) for the utility. Overall, digital water management (encompassing smart irrigation, smart meters, and AI analytics) represents a significant efficiency opportunity and is likely to be a focus of capital spending, especially with federal grants available for water efficiency projects.

Desalination and Water Reuse

To augment strained supplies, especially in drought-prone coastal areas, utilities are increasingly turning to desalination and wastewater reuse. Desalination technology has matured – modern seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) plants use advanced membranes and energy-recovery turbines to lower the historically high energy cost of producing freshwater from saltwater. The U.S. currently hosts hundreds of desal facilities, though most (over 400) are small-scale plants treating brackish groundwater (lower salinity than seawater) in states like Florida, Texas, and California. Florida leads in count (with numerous inland brackish desal plants addressing aquifer salinity), whereas California operates the largest seawater desal plants (e.g. the Carlsbad plant produces ~50 million gallons per day).

Desalination is moving into the mainstream of water planning for cities like Corpus Christi, TX, which in 2025 approved its first large-scale seawater desal plant (30 MGD) to ensure a resilient supply amid recurring drought emergencies. Similarly, communities in California are pursuing new desal projects (e.g. Monterey Peninsula’s plant, pending approval) and expanding brackish water desalination in Southern California’s groundwater basins. Technological innovations are addressing previous downsides: for example, enhanced pretreatment methods to prevent membrane fouling (such as the electrochemical process planned for Corpus Christi’s plant) reduce maintenance and preserve energy efficiency. Energy use still constitutes a major cost – SWRO typically consumes 3–4 kWh per cubic meter of water – but ongoing R&D in high-permeability membranes and alternative processes (like forward osmosis) aims to drive this down. Furthermore, co-locating desal plants with power plants or using off-peak renewable energy can improve economics and sustainability.

In tandem with desalination, potable water reuse (advanced recycling of treated wastewater) is another technological solution expanding in the U.S. States like California, Texas, and Arizona have pioneered “toilet-to-tap” projects where wastewater is treated with multi-stage advanced processes (microfiltration, reverse osmosis, UV disinfection, etc.) to produce drinking-quality water that is either injected into aquifers or fed directly into supply. These systems rely on sophisticated treatment trains – often incorporating nanofiltration or RO membranes – to ensure safety. Investment in reuse is accelerating given its lower energy profile relative to seawater desal and its ability to “drought-proof” inland cities. Both desalination and reuse markets are expected to grow, supported by dedicated federal funding (the IIJA includes funding for water reuse projects under the Bureau of Reclamation) and by the pressing need for new sources in water-scarce regions.

Nanotechnology in Treatment

Nanotechnology offers a cutting-edge frontier for water treatment improvements. Utilities traditionally rely on conventional filters and chemical processes, but nano-engineered materials are enabling more precise and efficient contaminant removal. One application is nanofiltration (NF) membranes – these operate at pore sizes between ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis, allowing them to reject larger organic molecules and multivalent ions while passing more water than RO (thus requiring less pressure). NF is increasingly used for softening water (removing hardness) and can remove certain contaminants like color compounds or micro-pollutants with less energy than RO.

Beyond membranes, various nano-adsorbents and catalysts are in development. For example, specially coated nanoparticles or graphene-based materials can capture trace pollutants such as arsenic, lead, or even PFAS compounds more effectively than conventional granular activated carbon. Some nanomaterials not only adsorb but also catalyze the breakdown of contaminants – for instance, nano-scale zero-valent iron has been used to degrade chlorinated solvents and could target emerging contaminants. According to industry analyses, nanotechnology can improve water treatment by targeting pollutants at the molecular level, potentially achieving higher water quality and longer filter life. In the long run, nano-enabled processes might significantly reduce treatment costs (through higher throughput and lower waste) and help utilities meet tighter standards for contaminants of emerging concern.

While many nanotech solutions are still in pilot or early adoption stages, larger treatment plant upgrades are beginning to include these advanced materials. Some utilities have started to install nanofiltration units for specific treatment goals (like removing natural organic matter to curb disinfection byproducts). The federal government and academic institutions are funding research on safe and effective use of nanotechnology in water (ensuring that nanoparticles themselves do not pose health risks). For investors, companies in the water tech space that have proprietary nano-materials or membrane innovations could see growing demand as regulations (e.g. for PFAS, discussed below) push utilities to seek higher-performance treatment options. Nanotech in water is an area to watch for breakthrough improvements in the next decade, potentially creating a “new era” of water treatment where contaminant removal is more complete and efficient than ever.

Sustainability Initiatives and Regulatory Changes

Environmental sustainability and regulatory compliance are core drivers of change in the water supply industry. In recent years, there has been a wave of new regulations – at both federal and state levels – aimed at ensuring safer drinking water and more sustainable water use. Simultaneously, utilities are voluntarily adopting greener practices to reduce their environmental footprint. This section covers major regulatory changes (like PFAS rules and lead pipe mandates) and key sustainability initiatives.

PFAS Regulations: Perhaps the most impactful new regulations involve PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), a group of persistent “forever chemicals” linked to health risks. In April 2024, the U.S. EPA finalized the first-ever national drinking water standards for PFAS, setting extremely low Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for six PFAS compound. The rule mandates MCLs of 4 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS (two of the most common PFAS chemicals) – essentially at the edge of laboratory detectability. Four other PFAS (PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and GenX) have a combined limit via a Hazard Index approach, effectively about 10 ppt each. Water systems will have to begin monitoring for these substances by 2027 and achieve compliance (install treatment if needed) by 2029–2031. EPA estimates that 6% to 10% of U.S. public water systems – roughly 4,000 out of 66,000 systems – currently have PFAS levels exceeding the new standards and thus will require remediation measures. Many states had already started acting on PFAS: at least 20 states have set their own PFAS limits or guidance levels in drinking water (often anticipating EPA’s move). This patchwork of state rules is now being overtaken by one stringent federal rule, although enforcement and potential adjustments (EPA signaled in 2025 it may reconsider some PFAS limits amid legal challenges) are ongoing.

For the industry, PFAS compliance is a major capital and operating challenge. Removing PFAS typically requires advanced treatments like granular activated carbon (GAC), ion exchange resins, or high-pressure membranes (RO/NF), followed by disposal of the concentrated waste. These treatments are costly; EPA’s cost-benefit analysis for the PFAS rule (now under court challenge) shows multi-billion-dollar nationwide compliance costs, which water utilities argue may be under-estimated. Nonetheless, addressing PFAS is non-negotiable from a public health standpoint. It has become “an increased area of focus” for engineering firms and technology providers. Already, we see large design-build contracts for PFAS treatment systems in affected communities, and M&A activity where bigger companies acquire smaller systems that cannot afford compliance upgrades. On the flip side, water utilities are also pursuing polluters (manufacturers of PFAS) in court to seek funds to offset treatment costs, and federal funds (e.g. the $10 billion in IIJA for PFAS) are being allocated to help communities install treatment. Investors should be aware that utilities with known PFAS contamination hotspots will be directing significant capex to treatment projects in the next few years, and those that move proactively (or secure external funding) will be better positioned.

Lead Service Line Replacements: Another top regulatory priority is removal of lead plumbing from water systems. The EPA’s revised Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) in 2021 tightened monitoring and pushed utilities to create inventories of lead service lines (the pipes connecting water mains to homes) with an eventual goal of full removal. This aligns with heightened public concern after high-profile crises like Flint, MI. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law dedicated $15 billion specifically to lead service line replacement projects – a historic investment but still not enough, as EPA estimates the cost to replace all lead lines nationally could exceed $45 billion. Many states and cities (e.g. Michigan, New Jersey) have passed mandates requiring utilities to replace all lead service lines within the next decade or so. Utilities are now identifying where lead lines remain (millions of older homes still have them) and ramping up replacement programs, often prioritizing disadvantaged communities. This is a sustainability and equity initiative as much as regulatory compliance; removing lead improves long-term public health (especially for children) and builds trust in tap water. From a market perspective, it means steady construction work (excavation and pipe replacement) and a need for capital financing. Some larger water companies see growth opportunity in contracting to replace municipal lead lines or in acquiring small systems that lack resources to tackle the problem. The combination of federal grants, state programs, and allowable rate recovery for lead mitigation makes this a major investment theme through the late 2020s.

Water Quality and Emerging Contaminants: Beyond PFAS and lead, the EPA is continually updating standards for other contaminants. Upcoming regulations or actions include stricter limits on disinfection byproducts, potential standards for 1,4-dioxane (an industrial solvent), microplastics, and further revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule to possibly lower the “action level” for lead. The regulatory trend is toward tighter water quality standards across the board, driven by scientific advances in detection and public demand for safer water. This translates to more advanced treatment processes and monitoring requirements industry-wide. We also see local mandates – for instance, some states require testing of school water for lead or mandate filtering in schools and daycares. Compliance and demonstrating high quality is thus both a regulatory necessity and part of maintaining customer confidence in drinking water, a key concern after incidents like Flint’s lead crisis.

Water Conservation and Local Mandates: On the sustainability front, water use efficiency is a major focus, particularly in arid regions. States like California have enacted long-term conservation mandates (e.g. aiming to cut per-capita urban water use via “20x2020” legislation and new targets for 2030). California, for example, is implementing standards for indoor residential water use (55 gallons per person per day, ratcheting down to 42 by 2030) and requiring utilities to reduce outdoor irrigation waste. During drought emergencies, local authorities impose lawn watering restrictions, as seen recently in Texas (Stage 3 rules banned most outdoor watering in Corpus Christi in 2025) and California (statewide mandates in the 2020–22 drought). These measures can temporarily depress water sales (impacting utility revenue) but are crucial for sustainability.

Utilities are also embracing conservation through tiered pricing (charging higher rates for high usage to incentivize savings), rebate programs for water-efficient appliances, and public education campaigns. Many are pursuing non-revenue water loss reduction – finding and fixing leaks in their distribution networks – as a sustainability and efficiency measure. It’s estimated that nationally, water systems lose on average 10–30% of treated water to leaks before it reaches customers, so advanced leak detection (using acoustic sensors, smart meters) is being adopted to curb this waste.

Energy Sustainability: Another initiative is making water systems themselves more sustainable energy-wise. Water and wastewater utilities consume about 2% of U.S. electricity, and large utilities are investing in renewable energy, on-site solar, biogas utilization at treatment plants, and energy-efficient equipment to shrink their carbon footprint. This not only supports climate goals but can reduce operating costs long-term. Some progressive utilities have set targets for carbon-neutral operations by 2035 or 2040, integrating sustainability into their strategic plans.

Regulatory Compliance as Opportunity: For industry investors, the wave of regulations (PFAS, lead, etc.) and sustainability drives can be seen as a double-edged sword – they increase costs and near-term capital needs, but also create opportunities for growth and differentiation. Companies that supply treatment technology, engineering services, or specialized construction (for pipe replacement) stand to benefit from robust demand. Investor-owned utilities that can access capital more easily may acquire systems that are struggling with compliance mandates. In some cases, regulators allow rate surcharges or trackers specifically to fund mandated improvements, which can provide more timely cost recovery. Also, the emphasis on sustainability is spurring innovation partnerships (as discussed in the technology section) and opening new funding sources (grants, green bonds, etc.) for water projects.

In summary, the regulatory environment for water is becoming more stringent, and sustainability expectations are rising. The industry is responding by accelerating infrastructure upgrades and adopting greener practices. Stakeholders – from federal and state governments to ratepayers and investors – are pushing for a water sector that is not only reliable and safe but also sustainable for future generations.

Geographic Market Breakdown and Regional Trends

Water supply conditions and market activity vary significantly by region in the United States. Geography dictates demand patterns, resource availability, and investment priorities. This section highlights key regional dynamics, including drought-prone areas and high-demand states:

Western United States (Southwest and California): The Southwest (Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah) and much of California face chronic water scarcity issues. These regions rely on over-allocated river systems (like the Colorado River) and declining groundwater. California and Texas alone accounted for 16% of U.S. water withdrawals as of 2015, reflecting large populations and extensive agriculture. California – the most populous state – is arguably the nation’s largest water market by revenue (IBISWorld data for state-specific industry size indicates California’s water supply industry is on the order of tens of billions in revenue). It also exemplifies extreme variability: alternating droughts and floods. Recent history saw a severe 2012–2016 drought in California, followed by another intense drought from 2020–2022, then record-breaking rains in winter 2023 that shifted focus to flood management. These swings demand both supply augmentation in dry times and resilience against flooding in wet times. California has been investing heavily in water infrastructure – even amid budget fluctuations, the state allocated about $12.9 billion in FY2025 for water and climate projects, including storage projects, conveyance improvements (e.g. proposals to tunnel water past the vulnerable Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta), flood control, and ecosystem restoration. The state is also a leader in recycling and conservation: Southern California’s Metropolitan Water District is building one of the world’s largest recycled water plants, and cities like Los Angeles aim to source 70% of supply locally (through conservation, stormwater capture, reuse) by 2035 to reduce reliance on imported water.

Elsewhere in the Southwest, Arizona and Nevada are contending with mandatory cutbacks from the Colorado River’s shortage conditions. Las Vegas (Southern Nevada Water Authority) has implemented aggressive conservation (e.g. paying residents to remove lawns) and built a deep intake in Lake Mead to secure water even at low reservoir levels. Arizona is pioneering water banking and pursuing agreements to desalinate water (even exploring partnerships to build a desal plant in Mexico in exchange for a share of water). New Mexico’s industry size is smaller ($619 million in 2025), but it faces its own challenges in balancing agricultural water rights and urban growth (e.g. Albuquerque). Overall, the Western market is characterized by high capital spending on new supplies and conservation, making it a hotspot for technologies like desalination (e.g. a proposed plant in Baja California for cross-border supply), large-scale reuse, aquifer recharge projects, and smart irrigation for agriculture.

Texas and the South: Texas is a fast-growing state with significant water stress in its drier western half. The state’s water market is large (second only to California in population) – IBISWorld estimates Texas’s water supply industry at several billions in market size. Texas has a mix of large municipal utilities (e.g. Houston, Dallas Water Utilities) and many rural water districts. A Texas Tribune report noted the state could see a severe water shortage by 2030 if infrastructure isn’t expanded. In response, Texas is “poised to spend billions” on water projects. Voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2019 to create the Texas SWIFT fund, financing projects in the state water plan. Some key initiatives include new reservoir construction (the first major reservoirs in decades, e.g. Bois d’Arc Lake just came online), inter-basin transfer pipelines, and now desalination on the coast (Corpus Christi’s planned 30 MGD seawater plant will be the first of its kind in Texas). Groundwater depletion is also an issue in Texas’s agricultural plains, so the state is funding conservation and aquifer storage projects. The Gulf Coast states (Louisiana, Mississippi, etc.) generally have abundant rainfall, but their water utilities face other challenges like hurricane damage and saltwater intrusion. For example, in 2023, the Mississippi River’s low flow allowed seawater to creep upriver, threatening drinking water intakes in Louisiana – an event that may recur with climate change. This is prompting resilience measures like emergency freshwater barging and consideration of desalination for coastal areas.

In the Southeast (Florida, Georgia, Carolinas), water supply is ample overall, but growth and localized droughts still create issues. Florida has a unique situation with abundant aquifers yet significant saltwater intrusion in coastal wells, which is why it has the highest number of desal plants (mostly small-scale brackish groundwater desal). Florida’s water agencies, like the South Florida Water Management District, are investing in massive Everglades restoration and surface storage projects to ensure long-term water for cities and ecosystems. Georgia and the Carolinas generally have enough water, but Atlanta and other metro areas have had periodic droughts requiring outdoor use bans. An interstate water dispute (the “Tri-State Water Wars” between Georgia, Alabama, Florida) over the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint basin exemplifies how growing demand can pit states against each other. Those cases underscore the need for regional planning and, increasingly, legal clarity on water rights.

Midwest and Northeast: The temperate Northeast and Great Lakes regions are water-rich and traditionally haven’t faced supply scarcity – for instance, states like Pennsylvania ($11.6 billion state water market in 2025), New York, Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan have extensive water infrastructure benefiting from large lakes and rivers. Their primary challenges are aging infrastructure and water quality in old systems. Many cities in the Northeast/Midwest have water mains and treatment plants over a century old (some dating to the late 1800s). The result is frequent main breaks, high leakage rates, and water quality issues (e.g. lead leaching from old pipes, as seen in legacy cities like Pittsburgh, Detroit, Newark). These regions are therefore investing heavily in rehabilitation – replacing mains, upgrading treatment plants (for example, to comply with new rules on disinfection byproducts in chlorinated systems), and eliminating combined sewer overflows that can contaminate source water. The Great Lakes provide a huge supply buffer, but even they are subject to environmental concerns, such as harmful algal blooms (from nutrient runoff) that have forced drinking water plant shutdowns (Toledo’s 2014 Lake Erie algae crisis is a notable case). This has spurred initiatives on source water protection and advanced treatment (like ozone and activated carbon to handle algal toxins).

Another regional aspect is the prevalence of small rural water systems in parts of the Midwest and Plains. States like the Dakotas, Kansas, and others have numerous small community systems or private wells. Small systems often struggle with economies of scale and compliance (e.g. they may find it hard to afford PFAS or arsenic treatment). We see federal USDA grants and state programs helping consolidate or support these rural systems. Some investor-owned utilities find opportunity here by acquiring small systems and spreading compliance costs over a larger base.

Regional Growth Markets: In terms of growth, states in the Sunbelt (Southeast and Southwest) are seeing the fastest population increases, thus higher water demand growth. For example, Arizona’s industry was expected to grow faster than the national average due to housing booms (though tempered by supply constraints). Nevada (Las Vegas) has seen its water industry expand via efficiency – serving more people with the same water through conservation – an interesting model of decoupling growth from volume. Colorado’s water agencies are also busy with projects as the state grows and grapple with reduced snowpack. Meanwhile, some Northern states have flat or declining water sales due to population stagnation and successful conservation (e.g. per capita use in many Northeast cities has steadily declined thanks to low-flow fixtures and pricing structures).

In summary, drought-prone Western states and fast-growing Southern states are the epicenter of new water supply investments (desalination plants, reservoirs, pipelines, reuse schemes), whereas older urbanized states in the Northeast/Midwest are pouring funds into renewing infrastructure and meeting new quality mandates. Each region faces unique conditions, but all are trending toward more capital-intensive solutions – which means the industry everywhere is in an investment cycle not seen in decades. Geographic diversification can be a strategy for large operators (e.g. American Water Works operates in 14 states, balancing wetter eastern assets with drier western ones) to mitigate regional climate and regulatory risks. From a policy standpoint, federal funding is being directed to both western water projects (through Bureau of Reclamation programs) and eastern infrastructure fixes (through EPA SRF allocations), attempting to address these regional disparities.

Competitive Landscape and Key Industry Players

The U.S. water supply industry’s competitive landscape is unlike most sectors: it is fragmented and dominated by public entities, yet it also features a niche but influential group of private companies. For investors and industry professionals, understanding this mix is important. Market concentration is very low – the top players account for only a small fraction of total industry revenue, reflecting how localized water services are.

Public vs. Private Operators: Approximately 89% of Americans are served by public or non-profit utilities (municipal water departments, regional authorities, co-operatives), while about 11% are served by investor-owned utilities (IOUs). Public utilities include some of the largest systems globally – for example, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection serves nearly 9 million people with ~1 billion gallons per day from its upstate reservoirs. Other major public providers are the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) (providing water to ~4 million Angelenos), Chicago’s Water Management, Philadelphia Water Department, Boston Water & Sewer Commission, and large regional entities like the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (a wholesaler supplying 19 million people in Southern California). These public agencies are not profit-driven; they finance via municipal bonds and set rates through local government oversight. They tend to reinvest surpluses into system improvements or keep rates low. Because they aren’t in direct competition (each has a geographic monopoly), their “market share” is best understood in terms of population served rather than revenue.

Investor-Owned Utilities: The investor-owned segment is led by a few publicly traded corporations that own regulated water subsidiaries across multiple states. The largest is American Water Works Company, Inc. (NYSE: AWK), which is the largest U.S. water utility by revenue and customer base. American Water serves over 14 million people in 14 states and reported ~$3.8 billion in total operating revenue in 2024. According to IBISWorld, American Water holds only about 3.3% of total industry revenue – illustrating the fragmentation, since even the biggest player’s market share is small. The next largest IOU is Essential Utilities, Inc. (NYSE: WTRG) – formerly Aqua America – based in Pennsylvania. Essential Utilities provides water/wastewater service to ~5 million people across 10 states and is the second-largest investor-owned water utility. Other notable IOUs include California Water Service Group (NYSE: CWT), American States Water (NYSE: AWR), SJW Group (now rebranded as Connecticut Water / SJW), Middlesex Water (NASDAQ: MSEX), York Water (NASDAQ: YORW), and Liberty Utilities (Algonquin Power & Utilities). There are also privately held companies and those owned by private equity, plus a few international players (e.g. Veolia North America, a subsidiary of the French company Veolia, which acquired Suez’s U.S. operations in 2022, now runs water systems under contract or ownership in several cities).

Market Strategies: The IOUs generally operate in a regulated monopoly model within their service areas – state public utility commissions set their rates allowing a return on investment. Their strategy has been to grow through mergers and acquisitions (M&A) of smaller systems. Given the industry’s fragmentation, there’s ample room to consolidate. Indeed, an evolving trend is investor-owned utilities buying municipal systems or taking over troubled small utilities. About 20 leading IOUs serve roughly 5% of the U.S. population, and many of these acquisitions are enabled by policies like “fair market value” legislation in certain states. FMV laws allow a willing municipality to sell its water system at appraised market value (often higher than the depreciated book value), making sales more attractive to cities and giving IOUs a chance to expand. States like Pennsylvania, Illinois, Texas, and California have such frameworks, and acquisitions in those states have accelerated. For example, American Water and Essential have acquired dozens of small systems (including wastewater utilities) in recent years. This consolidation is seen as a way to inject capital into systems that otherwise couldn’t afford upgrades – the IOU can invest and spread costs across a broader customer base.

However, privatization can be controversial. Local opposition sometimes arises due to fears of rate increases under private owners (since public systems often kept rates artificially low). Nonetheless, for investors, the IOUs have delivered stable returns historically, since water demand is inelastic and rate cases generally ensure costs are covered plus a reasonable return. These stocks are often viewed as defensive, low-beta investments. The publicly traded water utilities have been expanding dividends and capital expenditure programs steadily.

Major Player Profiles:

American Water Works (AWK) – Headquartered in Camden, NJ, American Water is a nearly $30 billion market cap company. It operates regulated utilities in states like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Illinois, and California, and also has military base water contracts. With ~7,000 employees, AWK has been a “consolidator”, averaging 15–20 acquisitions per year (mostly small systems). It is financially strong, with 2024 net income around $1.1 billion and a capital investment plan exceeding $2.5 billion annually to replace infrastructure and pursue growth. AWK’s scale gives it efficiencies in procurement and technology deployment, and it often spearheads industry best practices. Its CEO, M. Susan Hardwick, recently emphasized that public-private collaboration is essential to improve U.S. water infrastructure and highlighted the urgency of investment as graded by ASCE.
Essential Utilities (Aqua) – Based near Philadelphia, Essential not only runs water utilities (Aqua Pennsylvania, Aqua Texas, etc.) but also acquired a natural gas utility (Peoples Gas in PA) in 2020, diversifying its regulated utility portfolio. Essential’s water segment serves about 3 million customer connections. The company has embraced acquisition growth; for instance, Aqua closed one of the largest municipal water system purchases in recent history by buying the Delaware County Regional Water Authority (serving 500,000 outside Philadelphia) – though that particular deal faced legal hurdles. Essential’s strategy includes integrating acquired systems and investing in pipe replacement and treatment (they too face PFAS in some service areas, which will require new filtration systems). Financially, Essential reported ~$1.5 billion in water/wastewater revenue in 2024 and healthy earnings growth.
Regional IOUs: California Water Service (Cal Water) is the third-largest, focusing on California (plus operations in WA, NM, HI). American States Water (through its Golden State Water subsidiary) and San Jose Water (part of SJW Group’s holdings) also primarily serve California – these companies benefit from California’s relatively constructive regulatory environment and the fact that even with conservation, California’s sheer size offers growth pockets (like serving new developments and towns that opt to privatize). Middlesex Water and York Water are examples of very old (over 100 years) water companies serving parts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania respectively; they are smaller but consistently profitable and invest heavily in system renewal.
Global/Contract Operators: Veolia North America is unique in that it often operates water systems via management contracts or public-private partnerships rather than outright ownership (although post-Suez merger, it does own some regulated assets in the U.S.). Veolia and another firm, Suez (now integrated with Veolia), traditionally compete to run big city systems under contract (for example, Veolia manages the drinking water system for Jersey City, NJ and until recently for Flint, MI). These companies bring technical expertise and can be hired to improve efficiency, but they’re not reflected in market revenue the same way since the city typically retains ownership.

Competition and Market Share: Given that water service areas are exclusive territories, there is little direct competition for customers – the competition is more at the time of acquisition or contract bidding. When a city considers privatization, IOUs may compete to offer the best terms; or when a contract city outsources operations, firms like Veolia, EPCOR, or Jacobs compete. In growth areas, occasionally developers create new utility systems and then sell them to an IOU or co-op, which is another avenue of competition for new developments. Overall, the industry is characterized by a stable, captive customer base and thus low churn.

Market Outlook – Competitive Landscape: We expect further consolidation in coming years. Out of ~50,000 community water systems, the vast majority under 3,300 population, many will look to regionalize or be acquired due to the increasing complexity of regulations (small towns simply can’t afford PFAS treatment on their own, for instance). This plays to the strength of IOUs and larger public regional authorities. States with FMV laws are likely to see more deals – for example, Illinois American Water (a subsidiary of AWK) has been actively buying small municipal systems since Illinois passed such legislation. Similarly, New Jersey and Pennsylvania have seen a number of municipal system sales to private companies. On the other hand, not all states allow this easily; some, like California, have restrictions or political resistance to privatization.

From a performance standpoint, the major private players have solid credit ratings and access to capital, which will help in this capital-intensive period. Public utilities have to rely on municipal bonds; with interest rates higher than a few years ago, their debt service costs are rising, which could ironically make private capital (which can inject equity) more attractive in some cases. We might also see creative partnerships rather than outright sales – e.g. a city leasing operations to an expert firm for 20 years to handle upgrades, or joint ventures for specific projects (like regional treatment plants shared by multiple cities, operated by a third party).

In conclusion, while the U.S. water supply industry will remain fragmented, the slice of the pie held by large, well-capitalized entities is likely to grow. The competitive focus is on efficiency (reducing leaks, energy use), customer service improvements (many utilities are adopting customer information systems and digital billing), and innovative financing to meet infrastructure needs. Key players – both public and private – that adapt to these demands and leverage economies of scale are positioned to thrive, whereas very small, under-resourced systems may increasingly merge or fold into larger ones.

Financial Performance and Investment Trends

The financial profile of the water supply & irrigation industry is shaped by its heavy infrastructure requirements, regulated pricing, and now an unprecedented flow of investment funding. Here we analyze key financial metrics, recent performance, and evolving investment trends:

Revenue and Cash Flows: As noted, industry revenue in 2025 is about $121.5 billion. Because water utilities have predictable demand (people need roughly the same water year-in, year-out, aside from drought restrictions) and monopoly service areas, revenue tends to be stable, if low-growth. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic initially reduced commercial and industrial water usage (offset by slight uptick in residential), but overall revenue remained resilient and was bolstered in 2021–2022 by stimulus-funded utility bill assistance in some areas and the resumption of economic activity. By 2024, many utilities implemented rate increases to fund capital projects, contributing to the 14.9% revenue jump, though part of that figure may include one-time accounting or federal grant inflows. Looking ahead, revenue growth will depend on rate cases and any increase in volume sales (which, due to conservation, is often flat). We anticipate modest industry-wide growth in nominal terms, probably in the low single digits annually, as rate hikes roughly track inflation and rising operating costs.

Profitability: On profitability, privately owned utilities typically target ~50–60% operating ratios (expenses as % of revenue), yielding operating margins around 40–50%, but after depreciation and interest, net margins often land near 10–20%. Public utilities don’t report profit, but they do aim to cover costs and maintain debt service coverage. A challenge now is cost escalation: inflation in construction and chemicals has outpaced some rate increases, squeezing margins. ASCE reported that utilities have seen significant cost surges in labor and materials recently. If inflation persists, expect more frequent rate adjustments (some states allow automatic inflation index adjustments). Notably, water utilities historically had lower default rates on bonds, reflecting reliable cash flows, but smaller systems with looming capital expenses could face financial strain (hence consolidation or state aid may intervene).

Capital Expenditures: The industry’s capital expenditure (capex) levels are soaring. Where a mid-sized utility might have spent depreciation-level capex in the 2000s, they are now often spending 2–3× depreciation on renewal. For example, American Water in 2023 spent ~$2.8 billion on capex (roughly 2.5 times its depreciation expense), and it plans $14–15 billion over 5 years on infrastructure. Industry-wide, annual water infrastructure investment needs are estimated around $50–60 billion (drinking water) according to EPA’s surveys, but actual spending had lagged – one reason the $110 billion annual gap emerged. The injection of federal funds (grants and loans) is now boosting total capex. Many utilities are accelerating lead line replacements and treatment plant projects specifically because federal grants reduce the local cost burden. From an investor’s perspective, this means construction and engineering firms in the water sector are seeing robust project pipelines, and utilities will be raising capital (debt/equity) to match federal grants for their share of project financing.

Infrastructure Funding Mechanisms: Several funding mechanisms merit attention:

Municipal Bonds: Remain the backbone of public utility finance. Most large city utilities issue revenue bonds. Interest rate increases in 2022–2023 have made borrowing more expensive, but the bonds are usually tax-exempt which helps. Credit ratings for water revenue bonds are generally high (AA or above) due to stable revenue. Smaller utilities, however, may have trouble accessing bond markets, which is where state revolving funds (SRFs) step in.
State Revolving Funds (SRFs): Every state has a Drinking Water SRF providing low-interest loans (often below market, sometimes partially forgivable loans for disadvantaged communities). The IIJA added ~$11.7 billion to SRFs over five years, greatly expanding their lending capacity. States are prioritizing projects like PFAS treatment and lead line removal with this money. For borrowers, SRF loans can substantially reduce financing costs (interest may be 0–2% versus 4–5% in open market).
WIFIA: As described, WIFIA has issued $22 billion in loans through Jan 2025. WIFIA can finance up to 49% of a project’s cost and offers long 35-year terms at U.S. Treasury rates. Many big-ticket projects (>$100 million) now layer WIFIA with municipal bonds and SRF loans to minimize interest expense. The concern is that federal budget cuts could hit WIFIA – proposals have suggested up to 90% funding cuts for WIFIA and SRFs in future budgets, which industry advocates like AWWA strongly oppose.
Private Investment & P3s: There is a growing trend of using Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) for specific facilities. For example, desalination plants are often built via P3 (the Carlsbad, CA plant is owned by Poseidon Water, a private firm, selling water to a public agency via contract). Similarly, some cities contract private operators to design-build-finance-operate (DBFO) new treatment plants, paying them over time. This shifts upfront financing off the municipal balance sheet. With the huge funding gap, more communities may explore such models, especially where immediate needs outstrip public debt capacity. Private equity infrastructure funds have raised capital earmarked for water deals, though U.S. municipal market complexities have limited deals so far. One notable transaction was in 2023: a private investment firm acquired a majority stake in a Texas utility district’s water infrastructure to fund expansion – a novel model. We may see more infrastructure fund partnerships especially in fast-growing areas and for new technology projects (like large reuse schemes).
Grants and Subsidies: Beyond IIJA, other federal programs (e.g. USDA grants for rural water, Bureau of Reclamation funding in western states for water reuse/desal, FEMA grants for resilience) are contributing millions to local projects. These essentially act as equity injections into systems, improving their financial metrics and reducing needed rate hikes.

Risk Factors: Despite strong demand fundamentals, the industry faces financial risks: climate events can cause sudden expenses (emergency repairs, alternate water sourcing) – for instance, a major hurricane could require tens of millions in reconstruction for a coastal utility. Many utilities are buying insurance or pooling risk for such disasters, but those costs are rising. Regulatory compliance costs are another risk – if a utility fails to invest timely, it could face violations and legal penalties (as seen when some small systems exceeded arsenic standards and had to provide bottled water). For IOUs, an important risk is regulatory lag – the ability to get timely rate increases to cover costs. Most states have mechanisms like interim rates, but in some cases, lag can hurt earnings. Also, conservation success leading to sales volume decline is a paradox: as people use less water, revenue can drop unless rates are adjusted, which is why many rate designs now include higher fixed charges or “decoupling” mechanisms to stabilize revenues.

Investment Outlook: The need to renew and expand U.S. water infrastructure is drawing attention from policymakers and investors alike. The market for water infrastructure investment is robust and growing, supported by bipartisan recognition of water’s importance. The passage of large federal funding bills indicates tailwinds for at least the next 5–10 years of elevated spending. Analysts anticipate that even after IIJA funds are spent, additional federal or state funding might follow, given the partial nature of current allocations relative to total needs.

From a private investment perspective, water utilities remain attractive for stable returns – IOUs have been trading at premium valuations (e.g. AWK’s P/E ratio often ~30+, reflecting investor appetite for stability). Infrastructure funds eye water assets as long-lived, inflation-linked revenue generators. There’s also increasing focus on ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) criteria in investing: water utilities score well on the “social” aspect (providing an essential service) and are working to improve on environmental metrics (reducing leaks, energy use).

One notable trend is green bonds issuance by water agencies. Utilities in California, New York, DC, and others have issued certified green bonds to fund sustainable projects, tapping into ESG-focused capital at potentially lower interest rates. We expect more innovation in financing, such as environmental impact bonds (which DC Water trialed for stormwater management) where repayment may vary with project success metrics.

Conclusion (Financial & Investment Perspective): The US water supply industry in 2025 is in a phase of intensive capital deployment. Financial performance for many utilities will be marked by high spending and rising debt, but also by improvements in service reliability and regulatory compliance that will pay off long-term. Ratepayers will likely see moderate bill increases, though tempered by efficiency gains and subsidies. For investors, the sector offers stability with moderate growth, and significant opportunity in the engineering, construction, and technology markets servicing the industry’s upgrade cycle. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and ongoing policy support have effectively de-risked some investment by providing public co-funding. However, utilities and regulators must continue balancing investment needs with affordability – ensuring that water services remain accessible to all customers even as billions are poured into modernization. The trajectory points to a safer, more resilient, and more sustainable water infrastructure landscape in the coming decade – a transformation that is already underway, driven by the imperatives detailed in this report.

Sources:

Carnegie Mellon Univ. (2025), Climate Hazards and Drinking Water Utilitie.
Construction Dive (Apr 2025), “America’s aging water infrastructure faces new threats”.
EPA & GAO reports on PFAS regulations; ASTHO analysis of state PFAS actions.
American Water Works Co. – IBISWorld Company Profile & Investor materials.
Bluefield Research (May 2025), U.S. Investor-Owned Water Utilities Market Share.
U.S. Center for Sustainable Systems – Water Factsheet (2023).
Water Finance & Management (July 2025), WIFIA program surpasses $10B disbursed.
Aquatech Online (June 2025), “Texas kickstarts new desalination frontier”.
Public Policy Institute of California (Sept 2024), State water investment blog.
ASCE 2025 Infrastructure Report Card – Water sector summaries.
Additional industry data from AWWA, EPA, and state agencies as referenced throughout the report.