With a record 48 teams and millions of expected visitors, this tournament is being compared to hosting seven Super Bowls every day for a month. However, unlike a Super Bowl, the World Cup will take place in stadiums across the country. For U.S. water systems, this is a nationwide stress test, playing out in real time before an international audience.

Eight out of eleven host cities face water stress

The numbers tell a sobering story. According to Pitches in Peril, the first global climate risk report for soccer, eight of the eleven U.S. World Cup venues face water stress severe enough to pose a risk of event disruption—meaning irrigation water availability is increasingly uncertain. In practical terms, that raises the risks of usage restrictions, higher water costs, or operational strain during the competition itself.

MetLife Stadium, the venue for New York and New Jersey, received the highest water stress score of all; its low elevation leaves it acutely vulnerable to storm surges and saltwater intrusion–threats that can directly affect drinking water quality.

The good news is many stadiums are being proactive, not reactive, to water management challenges.

Across the country, major venues have invested in on-site water reuse systems designed to recycle wastewater and capture rainwater for non-potable applications like toilet flushing, irrigation, and pressure washing. This reduces their draw on municipal water supply and minimizes, or even outright eliminates, their discharges to municipal wastewater systems.

Gillette Stadium operates the largest water reuse facility in Massachusetts. Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta uses a 680,000-gallon rainwater cistern that recycles stormwater for landscape and urban garden irrigation; combined with the stadium’s water-efficient fixtures, potable water use is cut nearly in half. In addition to on-site production, stadiums are also importing recycled water. Levi’s Stadium in the San Francisco Bay Area sources roughly 85% of its water from municipally recycled supplies, provided by the Santa Clara Valley Water District.

These are meaningful investments in water resilience, though they’re the exception and not the rule. As extremely resource-intensive commercial facilities, often supported by both private and public revenue streams, sports stadiums have a far greater runway to finance sustainability than most utilities.

Modern stadiums. Aging pipes.

While stadiums demonstrate water stewardship and continue to modernize, the municipal water systems that serve them and their surrounding communities commonly tell a different story.

In Philadelphia, roughly 20 miles of water mains predate the Civil War. In the U.S., a water main break occurs approximately every two minutes, and a sizable portion of the nationwide network is operating beyond its intended lifespan. The World Cup is anticipated to exacerbate these existing vulnerabilities. Some host cities are accelerating long-overdue upgrades. Arlington, Texas, invested US$44 million in water treatment upgrades in 2025 to boost capacity ahead of AT&T Stadium matches, which is US$35 million more than its combined 2026 and 2027 budgets. Nearby Fort Worth is racing to replace aging cast iron transmission mains that accounted for over 85% of water main breaks in the city’s distribution system in 2025.

These efforts matter. But they also underscore a larger reality:

A global event shouldn’t be what finally moves critical water upgrades forward. Yet, in many cases, it is.

The hidden water conversation: what fans drink from

Another shift is happening inside stadiums: venues are increasingly moving away from single-use plastic water bottles. NRG Stadium in Houston and SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles, for example, now allow fans to bring empty reusable containers and access free refill stations throughout their respective facilities. The environmental logic is sound. So is the public health argument: one academic study found that the average liter of bottled water contains 59 times the plastic particles found in a liter of tap water.

But the deeper issue is trust. More than half of Americans believe it’s unsafe to drink tap water at home: a perception gap that costs utilities enormously in consumer engagement. Stadiums, with their high visibility and captive audiences, are uniquely positioned to change that. Every hydration station is also a referendum on the safety and quality of America’s water supply, and every refill is a small, visible vote of confidence.

Every match is a halftime flush problem

One of the least visible but most intense stressors on water systems is also the most predictable: halftime. When thousands of fans simultaneously head to the restroom during a 15-minute break, supply usage spikes sharply. While stadiums are designed to handle this surge, the World Cup’s recurring, massive water demands are anticipated to place significant strain on public distribution networks. Outside of gameplay, the influx of visitors means more water is being drawn for everyday use, including for showers, sinks, and cooking.

Local plumbing companies are already warning homeowners in host cities to expect weaker water pressure during matches and to consider backflow prevention measures for irrigation systems and boilers.

The Bottom Line

While improvements are underway, U.S. water infrastructure could be stressed this summer during the 2026 World Cup, due to years of underinvestment. As we enter a future in which climate patterns are uncertain and aging infrastructure becomes more prevalent, the health of the U.S. water sector is a critical concern.

Water isn’t an amenity. It’s the foundation. And the real question is not whether the system will hold for one tournament—but whether cities will act before the next stress test arrives.

The post Are U.S. Water Systems Ready for World Cup 2026? appeared first on Bluefield Research.

The annual Colorado River conference recently wrapped and the takeaway is a depressingly familiar deadlock. Seven players, the same battle scars, and the same entrenched positions continue to prevent critical progress.

• The Upper Basin states—Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming—won’t commit to cuts.
• The Lower Basin states—Nevada, Arizona, California—are pushing for 1.5 million acre-feet of cuts, but it isn’t enough.
• Lake Powell and Lake Mead—the two largest reservoirs on the Colorado—are only 28% to 37% full.
• Colorado’s snowpack has hit record lows across the state this winter. On 6 January, 100% of California was classified as free of drought conditions for the first time in 25 years.

The uncomfortable truth? The river can no longer support 40 million people and 5.5 million acres of farmland, as flows have reduced from an average of 18 million acre-feet to around 12.5 million acre-feet and are trending lower. The 1922 Colorado River Compact, based on data from a uniquely wet period, was flawed then and is catastrophically wrong now.

So, let’s stop fighting over a diminishing asset and build something better. This is an opportunity to rethink infrastructure and create countless jobs.

Where Does All the Water Go?

A notable 2024 study published in Communications Earth & Environment provides a full water budget for the Colorado River Basin:

• Agriculture: 52%—Irrigated crops consume more than half of the river
• Natural vegetation: 19%—Riparian and wetland evapotranspiration
• Municipal, commercial & industrial: 18%—Cities, businesses, industry
• Reservoir evaporation: 11%—Water lost from Lake Mead, Lake Powell, and other storage

The Real Leverage Point: Agriculture

Cattle-feed crops—alfalfa and other hay—alone consume 32% of the entire river. That’s nearly a third of all Colorado River water going to feed cows.

In the Upper Basin, cattle-feed crops drink 90% of all irrigation water—three times more than cities, commercial users, and industries across the entire basin combined. Put differently, alfalfa consumes more Colorado River water than Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Denver, and every other city and business in the basin, combined.

The seven-state negotiation focuses on municipal allocations and mandatory cuts—but cities only use 18% of the river. The structural problem is agricultural, and specifically, low-value, water-intensive crops grown with nearly free federal water. According to a December 2024 UCLA/NRDC analysis, municipal districts pay an average of US$512 per acre-foot for Colorado River water. Agricultural districts pay just US$30—and nearly a quarter of agricultural diversions cost nothing at all.

The path forward isn’t fighting over the 18%. It’s building water independence for cities while the economics of agricultural water use get rationalized—whether through market pricing, fallowing programs, or crop transitions.

Solutions Already in Action

Las Vegas, Nevada sits in the Mojave Desert and despite the having the smallest allocation of any basin state (300,000 acre-feet), it has added 750,000 residents in two decades while reducing total water consumption by 48%. How? Nevada recycles 85% of its wastewater, the highest rate among basin states. Arizona is second at 52%. The Upper Basin states average less than 5%.

Southern Nevada’s secret weapon is the return-flow credit system. Every gallon of treated wastewater returned to Lake Mead via the Las Vegas Wash earns a credit to withdraw another gallon. The result: Nevada effectively stretches its 300,000-acre-foot allocation to over 465,000 acre-feet. The Southern Nevada Water Authority claims 99% recycling of all indoor water use—making it one of the most water-efficient metropolitan areas on the planet.

Orange County, CA is sixty miles from where state negotiators have traded barbs, operates the world’s largest water recycling facility. The Groundwater Replenishment System produces 130 million gallons of purified drinking water daily—enough for one million residents. It recycles 100% of reclaimable wastewater. The water meets all federal drinking water standards and costs less than importing water from the Colorado River. This isn’t a pilot. It’s been running since 2008 and just completed its third expansion.

Los Angeles, CA is following suit with Pure Water LA, a US$6 billion program to recycle 100% of the city’s wastewater by 2035. When complete, it will produce up to 230 million gallons per day—roughly one-third of LA’s drinking water needs.

Policy and Funding Gaps

Only 7% of Bureau of Reclamation conservation funding goes to water reuse—and California captures 80% of that. Upper Basin states receive just 4%, and tribal areas receive nothing. While the Trump administration has set a February 14th deadline for states to reach a deal, it has otherwise stayed hands-off. To date, there is no confirmed Bureau of Reclamation commissioner, and federal bailouts like the US$1 billion that bought temporary cuts in 2023 aren’t coming back in an era of spending cuts.

California’s statewide target of 1.49 million acre-feet of recycled water by 2040 points to a path forward. For water infrastructure investors, the buildout in treatment systems, advanced membranes, energy recovery, and distribution networks is a generational opportunity—driven by states and utilities acting in their own interest, not federal leadership.

The Bottom Line

Cynically, Colorado River negotiations will drag on, and may even produce an agreement. But any agreement that depends on an overallocated, climate-stressed river is a temporary fix. The durable solution isn’t dividing a shrinking pie—it’s building water independence, community by community, state by state, using technology that’s proven, cost-competitive, and immune to the politics of the Colorado River Compact.

For water infrastructure investors and utilities evaluating their portfolios, the question isn’t whether water recycling will scale—it’s whether you’ll be building it or buying it from someone who did.

The post Let’s Act Like the Colorado River Doesn’t Exist appeared first on Bluefield Research.

Having recently completed Andy Greenberg’s Sandworm: A New Era of Cyberwar and the Hunt for the Kremlin’s Most Dangerous Hackers, which details global cyberattacks and the rising arena of infrastructure warfare, I find myself reflecting on the clear gap between the water sector’s vulnerability and its capacity to respond.

Digitizing into Exposure

The reality is simple: the water sector is utilizing digital tools faster than they can secure them. This isn’t a failure of intent—it’s a structural mismatch. Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) now ship with remote monitoring, interconnectivity, and analytics capabilities embedded in the hardware and equipment —a natural progression in today’s connected world. Essentially, the Internet of Things (IoT) era has arrived for water infrastructure whether operators requested it or not. The result is a sector digitizing into exposure.

According to Bluefield Research, cybersecurity spending is forecast to reach US$3.1 billion by 2033—about 13% of digital water market spend. Most investment will come from the roughly 400 largest utilities serving over 100,000 people, not the 39,000 small systems (serving fewer than 3,300) that are most exposed. Larger utilities have more capabilities to invest in dedicated safeguards, while smaller systems more often rely on federal guidance and free resources to meet minimum expectations. Federal guidance and volunteer information technology (IT) support are insufficient to realistically defend against highly sophisticated, geopolitical adversaries of the U.S. As a result, digital water can’t deliver needed resilience when most systems remain under protected.

The Fragmentation Paradox

Bluefield has long advocated for utility consolidation as a pathway to greater operational efficiencies, improved access to capital, expanded technical capacity, and more reliable service. This applies regardless of buyer type, whether municipal, investor-owned, or cooperative. Yet cybersecurity introduces a paradox: this fragmentation, often seen as a barrier to efficiency, is an unintended defensive barrier to cascading cyber threats from one asset to another.

The U.S. election system offers an analogy. Its own complexity and decentralization make it difficult to attack at scale—there’s no central ballot box, no uniform software platform, and no single attack surface to compromise. Water is similarly fragmented—more than 49,000 drinking water utilities and 23,000 wastewater systems create a seemingly natural moat. For adversaries, this diversity can limit potential for widespread, synchronized disruption.

But fragmentation is not a strategy. The sector cannot rely on structural complexity for protection while simultaneously pursuing modernization, standardization, and interoperability needed for long-term resilience.

A Global Challenge: Eastern Europe Is on the Front Lines

Poland’s recent experience shows where the global water sector is headed. Polish utilities now face roughly 300 cyber intrusion attempts per day. In 2025 alone, multiple drinking water and wastewater facilities were targeted. The national response has been swift: more than US$1 billion committed to cybersecurity, expansion of regulatory oversight from a few hundred utilities to over 10,000, and the creation of Europe’s first civilian-military cybersecurity operations center. Utilities themselves have launched a national information-sharing network to detect and respond to emerging threats more quickly. This is not a regional outlier. It’s an early signal of what increasingly interconnected water systems should expect.

Every Strategic Decision Now Carries a Cyber Dimension

The water sector sits at an inflection point. Its most urgent need—modernization—meets its greatest vulnerability: an increasingly interconnected digital infrastructure. The question is no longer whether to modernize, but rather how to modernize securely and at scale. The implications touch every dimension of utility strategy:

• Technology adoption: Digitalization itself isn’t risky—digitalization without security foundations is. The return on investment (ROI) calculation for every new technology must now include cybersecurity infrastructure and ongoing monitoring costs.
• Capital allocation: Cybersecurity can no longer be an afterthought in capital planning. Investments in operational technology must be matched with investments in security architecture. This includes asset inventories, network segmentation, endpoint monitoring, patch management systems, and incident response capabilities.
• Vendor management: Each piece of equipment is a potential entry point. Procurement must require security standards, vulnerability management, and clear accountability for updates.
• Operational models: Shared services and regional cooperation may create efficiencies but also new attack surfaces. These models must distribute risk, not concentrate it.
• Workforce strategy: With operational staffing already constrained, the sector now needs cybersecurity competency as well. Regional security operations centers, managed services, and built-in cyber training will be essential. 

In the closing section of Sandworm, one detail stuck with me: during emergency simulations in Long Island, New York, a team of electric utility staff found that a reliance on more traditional analog controls in an emergency isn’t just harder, it’s unfamiliar. Operators in today’s workforce, trained on digital technologies, no longer have experience to fall back on manual solutions. Furthermore, new hardware and equipment aren’t even designed to do so.    

As such, we’ve seemed to have digitized past the point of easy retreat. Every connected device, delayed patch, and unchanged default password compounds the challenge. The water sector—vendors, utilities, integrators, and operators—must now act in concert, and quickly enough to outpace the looming threats that are not waiting for utilities to catch up.

The post Why Every Water Utility Decision Is Getting More Complicated: Cybersecurity appeared first on Bluefield Research.

In October 2025, following opposition from industry groups, California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed legislation (Assembly Bill 93) which would have required California data center operators to share site level water use estimates and annual consumption reports with local water suppliers. The rejection underscores a national challenge and may well be a missed opportunity. Thus far, the breakneck pace of data center development has outpaced the public’s understanding of water’s role in AI. Regulation lags even further. 

The data center industry is at a critical inflection point regarding its social license to operate—particularly when it comes to water. Will companies meet the moment through transparent, credible public messaging and measurable water stewardship actions, or miss the mark?

The true water footprint of data centers: direct on-site usage AND their indirect water usage at power plants. Bluefield’s data center market trends report estimates that in 2025, U.S. data centers will directly withdraw 107 million gallons of water per day (MGD) and consume approximately 60% of that water (62 MGD), primarily due to cooling needs. Considering that accounts for a mere 0.5% of total direct industrial water consumption in the U.S., the direct water usage for data centers appears quite insignificant.

However, when accounting for indirect usage (water attributed to data center electricity demand at thermoelectric power plants), the number balloons. According to Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, in 2023 data centers accounted for 211 billion gallons (578 MGD) of indirect water consumption at power plants—nearly ten times that of on-site data center water consumption for the same year. Heightening this challenge is the rapid growth of electricity demand by data centers, which has been forecasted to grow from 4% of total U.S. electricity demand in 2023 to as high as 12% in 2028. 

Many data center operators, including major tech companies like Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta, have self-imposed goals of becoming water positive by 2030. This means they aim to invest in local community projects like watershed restoration and clean water initiatives to return as much water as they use. But these targets ignore the far larger water footprint embedded in their outsized electricity use, which the operators are acutely aware of. For example, a leaked Amazon internal memo showed the company strategized to downplay its indirect water use and avert scrutiny prior to its 2022 water positive campaign launch.

Data centers impact community water supplies via both on-site usage and indirectly via thermoelectric power plant water consumption.

To fully capture the true snapshot of a data center’s water impact, indirect water usage must be included. Certainly, this responsibility does not fall exclusively on data center developers, but the cumulative impact at the basin level from both onsite water usage and the electric power sector cannot be ignored. Look no further than states like Virginia, where data centers already account for 26% of the state’s total power demand.

Useless high-level reporting or useful on-site data? The real water data dilemma. Water is inherently local, and the impact of a data center varies heavily based on its size, cooling methods, and geography. Local planners are challenged to forecast water supplies despite market uncertainty and inconsistent transparency from data center operators.

As such, the industry is stuck in a Catch-22. Site-by-site water usage would help clarify local impacts, but that same facility-level water usage is more often considered proprietary. 

When the Texas State Water Board surveyed operators to self-report their data center water usage to support state-wide planning, only a third of operators responded. Nevertheless, pushes for greater transparency continue. In Oregon, a lawsuit forced Google into partial disclosure, ultimately revealing that the hyperscaler directly used 355 million gallons of water at its Dalles data center in 2021—more than a quarter of the city’s total supply.

With approximately 97% of data centers relying on municipal water supplies and services, secrecy leaves utilities and planners flying blind. Without clear site-level data, local communities can’t assess the true trade-offs between jobs, tax revenue, rates, and long-term water security.

Water utilities, local governments, and electric utilities must balance potential benefits of data centers with local community concerns.

Utility mistrust is an unintended consequence. Depending on where one looks for confirmation bias, reports from the Harvard Electricity Law Initiative and the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis indicate that electric utility ratepayers are subsidizing data center buildout. In parallel, public statements from electricity providers promise the opposite–that data centers themselves have no impact on electricity rates. These polarized perspectives highlight the problem, that it is virtually impossible to convince ratepayers that they are not bearing an inequitable cost share of the data centers boom.

Water utilities face similar challenges like their electric utility counterparts. Public trust in water utilities has slipped from 77% in 2022 to 74% in 2024, according to survey work commissioned by the American Water Works Association. Inflation is making water rate increases difficult, and credit rating agencies have cited the inability to pass rate increases as a growing water sector challenge. As water ratepayers suspect that utilities favor large corporations over residents, opposition to new projects and rate increases hardens. Rebuilding that trust will require greater transparency around pricing, infrastructure investment, and cost allocation.

Almost overnight, data centers have taken center stage at the intersection of growth and accountability. The choice seems clear: embrace transparency or lose the social license to operate. For data centers to truly be water-positive, they must first be information-positive about the full extent of their impact.

The post Data Center Water Secrecy Hurts Communities (and the Industry Itself) appeared first on Bluefield Research.

As part of our ongoing, in-depth analysis of the global water sector, Bluefield Research’s team of water experts has identified five key dynamics that are changing water management in the U.S. Together, they form the contours of a sector that is no longer business as usual.

1. Construction Slowdown: Asset Renewal Over Expansion

The longstanding link between housing growth and water infrastructure expansion is weakening. Residential construction has dropped 15% since its 2022 peak, disrupting the historical model in which new homes meant new pipes, treatment capacity, and customer connections. For decades, utilities could rely on consistent construction activity to justify system expansion—but that era is ending. 

In its place, a new paradigm is emerging: one that prioritizes upgrading and renewing existing assets over building new ones. Capital investment is increasingly flowing toward resilience projects—digital twins, leak detection, smart meters—that optimize aging infrastructure. As climate uncertainty grows and water supply becomes more variable, this shift from expansion to efficiency will only accelerate.

Public spending on sewage and waste has doubled to US$50 billion over the last decade. Although, declines in residential construction (-15% from its 2022 peak) threaten greenfield infrastructure capacity additions.

2. Inflation and Tariffs: The New Cost Reality

Cost predictability—once a defining feature of water infrastructure planning—is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. For nearly two decades before 2020, utilities and industrial users could rely on stable material prices to guide long-term budgets. That era of stability has unraveled. First came pandemic-era supply chain disruptions, followed by sharp swings in commodity prices, and now renewed tariffs on critical imports like steel and chemicals.

• 2015–2020: Construction material prices increased just 0.15% per month, supporting low-risk, long-range planning.
• 2020–2022: Price hikes surged to 1.08% per month, forcing utilities to revise project budgets in real time.
• 2025 Outlook: New tariffs are compounding cost pressures, with project deferrals likely in 2026 due to delayed budget cycle impacts.
• Result: Bluefield’s analysis of capital improvement plans shows a 52% jump in per capita water utility spending (2023–2025)—a clear sign of inflation’s growing footprint.

What was once a cyclical nuisance is now a structural challenge. In this new cost environment, the winners will be utilities and contractors that adapt—rethinking procurement strategies, strengthening supply chains, and embedding technology to mitigate financial risk.

Rising construction material costs—ticking upward since the start of 2025—signal broader tariff impacts that could slow water and wastewater infrastructure buildout in 2026.

3. Workforce Cliff: Aging Operators, Thin Pipeline

The once-stable water workforce is entering a period of accelerated attrition. What was a quietly aging labor force is now approaching a tipping point. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly half of all U.S. water and wastewater operators are over 45 years old, while only 8% are under 25—a clear warning sign of a thinning talent pipeline. As retirements rise and turnover accelerates, utilities can no longer rely on institutional knowledge and long-serving staff to maintain operations.

This shift demands a new workforce strategy. Training, recruitment, and succession planning must move to the top of the agenda, supported by a coordinated push to attract younger talent. At the same time, utilities are increasingly turning to automation, remote monitoring, and AI-driven analytics to ease labor pressures and ensure continuity. Expanded apprenticeship programs, partnerships with community colleges, and the adoption of technologies that reduce dependence on on-site staffing all point to a broader industry pivot—from labor-intensive operations to tech-enabled resilience.

Water and wastewater utilities are heading toward a workforce cliff, with 50% of operators over 45 years old. The paucity of workers under 25, making up 8% of the current labor pool, poses longer-term challenges.

4. Industrial Surge: Data Centers Drive Demand

Industrial water demand is undergoing a dramatic shift—from steady, sector-based consumption to surging, infrastructure-intensive growth driven by digital infrastructure. What was once a niche consideration—data centers—is now one of the most powerful forces reshaping the U.S. industrial water landscape. Since 2015, the number of data center facilities have increased by 12.2% annually, outpacing conventional water-intensive sectors such as chemicals, paper, and food & beverage.

The U.S. industrial water market is currently valued at US$388 billion, with water management related to data centers expected to more than double—reaching US$797 billion globally by 2030. This shift is creating intense pressure on local water resources while simultaneously presenting major opportunities for innovation in cooling, reuse, and efficiency technologies.

At the same time, reputational and regulatory scrutiny is rising. Data center operators are responding with investments in watershed restoration, community partnerships, and transparent water reporting. What began as a quiet corner of industrial demand is now at the center of a broader transformation—pushing industrial water management toward a future defined by efficiency, resilience, and environmental accountability.

Growing at 12.2% annually since 2015, the data center segment is amplifying pressures on water resources and energy systems within a US$388 billion industrial water sector.

5. Energy-Water Nexus: Midstream Water Goes Mainstream

The role of water in energy production is no longer just cyclical—it’s becoming structural. Once viewed as a niche and highly price-sensitive service within oil and gas operations, midstream water services have evolved into a US$28 billion industry, encompassing supply, treatment, transport, and disposal in upstream operations. The foundation of demand has changed: the sector is now reinforced by enduring, global structural influences—Europe’s pivot away from Russian gas, Asia’s growing appetite for LNG, and a surge in U.S. electricity demand from AI and data centers.

This marks a significant shift. Water is no longer a reactive input that flexes with commodity swings; it has become a critical enabler of energy continuity and growth. In parallel, the industry is transitioning from high-disposal models to a reuse- and efficiency-driven future. A growing number of midstream water companies are consolidating and scaling technologies focused on produced water recycling, reducing environmental impact while improving operational efficiency. Together, these dynamics signal a maturing and increasingly indispensable role for water in the energy value chain—where sustainability, scalability, and resilience are becoming competitive advantages.

Water has always been essential. Now, it’s dynamic, disruptive, and increasingly strategic. The next decade will reward those who adapt—whether through technology, partnerships, or bold investments. The question isn’t if the water sector will change—but who will lead that change.

Midstream water management has emerged as a US$28 billion service industry, delivering critical water services—supply, storage, treatment, transport, and disposal–across seven key basins.

The post Water’s Tipping Point: Five Forces Redefining U.S. Water Management appeared first on Bluefield Research.

The reality is that the pharmaceutical industry’s high demand for water, particularly ultrapure water (water highly purified to eliminate contaminants), is colliding with the increasing strain on global water resources. Each dose of medication, every vial, carries a hidden water footprint. As regulations and public scrutiny surrounding water usage intensify, pharma companies face a pivotal challenge: They must manage water more sustainably or risk significant reputational and operational consequences in a world where scarcity is not a hypothetical issue.

Pharma Emerging as New Frontier for Water Solutions and Management 

As demand for popular pharmaceuticals continues to rise, escalating healthcare costs and an aging population, is driving new manufacturing facilities. In the U.S. alone, the number of manufacturing facilities has jumped by 48% since 2020, while new drug approvals have increased by 35% compared to 2022. Consequently, the pharmaceutical sector’s need for water—both as a raw material and for advanced wastewater treatment—presents many opportunities for specialized equipment and water service providers. It is essential to recognize the critical role of water and the unique aspects of the water industry.

Water is a crucial component often overlooked on product packaging; however, it is essential for both facility operations and as an ingredient in many products. Key examples include the following:

• Ultrapure water for production: essential for manufacturing injectables, tablets, and Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients
• Process water for operations: used in cleaning, sterilization, cooling, formulation, and steam generation
• Advanced wastewater treatment: necessary for managing high-strength effluents and residual compounds

Given water’s crucial role in pharmaceutical operations, companies are facing increasing pressure to assess and mitigate water-related risks throughout their processes and supply chains. These challenges require significant capital and operational expenditures; companies must invest in securing water sources, implementing advanced treatment systems, and ensuring compliance with stringent local and global regulations. The conversation is shifting from merely meeting compliance requirements to focusing on efficiency gains and water reuse as integral parts of broader sustainability and risk-reduction strategies. This change presents significant growth opportunities for providers of advanced treatment technologies and specialized services in an industry where reliability, purity, and adherence to regulations are essential.

A Surge in EU Growth = A Surge in Water Management Spend

In the U.S., pharmaceutical manufacturing is projected to grow by over 8% through 2030. This growth rate is comparable to that of many rapidly expanding high-tech sectors, including semiconductors and data centers. In this context, the European Union (EU) represents the second-largest market for pharmaceuticals after North America, accounting for nearly 30% of global revenues. The bulk of this market is concentrated in Western European countries such as Germany, Switzerland, and France. Switzerland stands out as a global leader in the pharmaceutical industry thanks to its long history of innovation and prominent domestic industry players, including Novartis, Roche, and Lonza. Roche has made significant investments in advanced wastewater treatment systems at its manufacturing facilities in Switzerland and Germany.

At the same time, extensive facility upgrades are creating expansion opportunities. For example, Novo Nordisk, the pharma giant known for producing the popular drug Ozempic, recently announced a US$4.1 billion investment in North Carolina and doubled the capacity of its wastewater treatment plant in Denmark with an investment of US$291.0 million. Novo Nordisk’s water withdrawals have increased by 33% since 2022 as a result of these expansions and new constructions. Additionally, in 2023, Novo Nordisk awarded a contract worth US$9.9 million to Saur (through its subsidiary Aqua-Chem) to construct a facility in Denmark that will produce Water for Injection (WFI) and pure steam. 

Regulatory Pressures Mount                                                                                                          

New EU regulations are significantly elevating the responsibilities of pharmaceutical manufacturers. The revised Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) introduces a major shift, as companies will now be directly accountable for removing micro-pollutants—such as active pharmaceutical ingredients—from wastewater. This obligation requires costly system upgrades and carries the risk of penalties for noncompliance.

At the core of these changes is an extended producer responsibility framework. Under this new system, industries including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and hygiene products must cover at least 80% of the costs associated with advanced wastewater treatment. These costs encompass expanding and operating quaternary treatment plants, as well as ongoing monitoring, data collection, and compliance verification. EU member states may cover the remaining 20%, with measures in place to ensure that medicines remain affordable and widely available.

The financial implications for pharmaceutical companies are clear: Manufacturers will face higher operational costs not only for upgrading on-site treatment systems but also for fees associated with municipal wastewater services. These regulatory changes highlight the urgent need for proactive investments in advanced treatment technologies and the establishment of strategic water partnerships to mitigate compliance risks and manage rising costs.

From Turnkey to Strategic Water Partnerships 

Across the sector, facility expansions and new greenfield projects are on the rise due to robust market growth, creating recurring revenue streams for water technology providers. These developments present opportunities for midterm equipment upgrades and a consistent demand for consumables, such as treatment chemicals and filtration membranes.

Gone are the days when water systems were treated as a one-time capital expenditure. As pharma facilities become increasingly complex, companies are shifting toward long-term partnerships that include digital monitoring, performance guarantees, and service-based models. Given the attractive growth potential and the increasing stringency of water quality parameters, leading service providers are forming partnerships with big pharma in Europe. Notable examples include the following:

• Veolia Water Technologies stands out for providing purified water, WFI, clean steam, and wastewater treatment systems for the pharma sector.
• BWT Pharma & Biotech specializes in high-purity water systems, offering both standardized and customized units.
• Xylem delivers advanced water treatment technologies such as reverse osmosis, UV treatment, filtration, and ion exchange, along with life cycle management services.
• Herco Water Technology offers flexible engineering and service solutions for both new and existing water treatment plants.
• H+E Pharma GmbH stems from a joint venture, combining expertise in industrial water treatment with pharmaceutical engineering to design, install, and maintain water systems for pharma clients.

In addition, collaborative projects like INSPIREWATER, an EU-funded consortium, are also working toward advancing sustainable and resource-efficient solutions tailored for pharma and other industrial sectors. 

Opportunities for Water Tech & Service Providers

Pharmaceutical manufacturing is emerging as a major growth opportunity for water technology providers. The rising demand for ultrapure water and advanced wastewater treatment is driving investment across the value chain. Companies that prioritize innovation and forge strategic partnerships will be well positioned at the forefront of this transition. Those that act early—by investing in water stewardship and resilient systems—will not only ensure compliance but also gain operational efficiency and cost advantages. 

The post From Vaccines to Ozempic: Why the Future of Pharma Depends on Smarter Water Management appeared first on Bluefield Research.

In a remarkable span of just eight months—an impressive timeline particularly by today’s friction-filled building standards—they built a 43-kilometer (27-mile) gravity-fed channel to transport water from the Tama River to the city’s 150,000 inhabitants. This initiative not only addressed a significant public health and urban planning issue but also established the groundwork for what would evolve into one of the most advanced water systems in the world.

Nearly four centuries later, Tokyo’s water infrastructure can be considered a marvel of scale and resilience. Although it is not without flaws, it is an undeniable testament to human ingenuity, especially considering the absence of contemporary tools like ArcGIS, earth-moving machines, and digital technologies. The aqueduct remains partially operational and is commemorated today as a national historic landmark, highlighting the enduring influence of engineers and planners in shaping the fortunes of modern cities.

What we design and build today, no matter how simple, should also represent a cornerstone for the future of water. This is the critical challenge for the water sector, given the changing landscape in which it must operate.    

Tokyo’s water system stands as a global benchmark for urban water infrastructure, both in scale and sophistication. Serving more than 13 million residents within the city proper and upwards of 35 million when including the surrounding prefectures, the system supports one of the most densely populated and economically vital urban regions in the world. Beneath the surface lies a labyrinth of over 27,000 kilometers (16,800 miles) of pipelines responsible for delivering up to six million cubic meters of potable water each day. Nearly 80% of this supply originates from the surface waters of the Tone and Arakawa Rivers, while another 15% to 20% is drawn from the Tamagawa River, underscoring Tokyo’s exposure to climate and the variability of surface water sources.

The foundation of this infrastructure was laid almost 375 years ago by visionary engineers, and through centuries of adaptation and investment, it has evolved into one of the more resilient and expansive municipal water systems globally. The scale and complexity of Tokyo’s network highlight the immense challenges of maintaining water reliability in megacities—challenges compounded by aging infrastructure, seismic risks, and climatic threats. Yet, Tokyo’s example also presents a roadmap, if not a reminder that with long-term planning, sustained capital investment, and advanced engineering, it is possible to achieve both scale and resilience in urban water systems. 

Engineered efficiency into every drop: A notable feature of Tokyo’s system is its remarkable operational efficiency, an outcome not just of policy but of ongoing management and focus. The Government of Japan reports that Tokyo’s leakage rate is only 2.0%, one of the lowest in the world, especially when contrasted with the 17.5% national average in the United States and even higher rates in various cities across Asia and Europe.

This achievement is a result of ongoing investments in service lines, advanced pressure management, and a proactive maintenance program that, while costly, provides benefits to the utility, the city, and its ratepayers in various aspects. The benefits extend beyond environmental to economic: leak prevention conserves 47 million kWh of electricity each year, enough to power 14,000 homes—a major gain for a country that heavily depends on imported energy.

It is no surprise that the likes of Japanese trading companies– Mitsui, Marubeni, Hitachi, Itochu, Sumitomo, Mitsubishi, Toyota Tsusho, and Sojitz– have built up portfolios spanning more than 79 water-related projects, globally. Their water strategies are differentiated by risk appetite, technical capability, and geographic focus—but all share an emphasis on precision, reliability, and embedded service delivery that align with their domestic market.  

Built for stress: Earthquakes, floods, and climate shocks. Tokyo’s system is not just large and efficient—it is resilient. Despite its technological sophistication, Tokyo’s water system remains highly vulnerable to climate and drought, with major droughts occurring roughly every decade. 

In 2016, a combination of upstream snowpack and rainfall deficits led to water levels in eight reservoirs along the Tone River dropping to just 45% of their usual capacity. Instead of waiting for a crisis to unfold, Tokyo has proactively integrated drought resilience into its infrastructure and operational strategies. The city has also made investments in wastewater reuse for non-potable applications and has installed rainwater harvesting systems. Tokyo treats water scarcity not as an isolated incident, but as a recurring risk to be managed with foresight and systems thinking

In the aftermath of the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake (and tsunami), which devastated the Fukushima Nuclear plant, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government reinforced its water facilities and networks with seismic upgrades, duplicate transmission lines, and emergency supply bases. Today, over 200 emergency supply sites ensure access to potable water, even in the event of widespread service disruption.

Why does the Tokyo experience matter? Too often, water infrastructure is out of sight and out of mind—until it fails to provide. The brilliance of Tokyo’s water system lies not only in its technical sophistication but also in its continuity—a demonstration to the value of thinking to the future rather than election cycles. Resilient water systems demand sustained investment, continuous technical innovation, and a local commitment to stewardship. They compel us to see water not as an endless commodity, but as the foundation upon which our cities and civilizations stand and grow.

Perhaps the true monument to Shoemon and Seiemon isn’t the stone marker, but the invisible reliability that Tokyo’s residents experience every time they turn on a tap. As we confront our own water challenges, globally we would do well to remember that the most essential infrastructure often remains unseen—until it isn’t there. The question for us now is whether what we are building today and beyond will stand as examples of our foresight or our failure to learn from history’s engineers.

The post What Tokyo’s Water System Teaches Us About Urban Resilience and The Future of Water appeared first on Bluefield Research.

In the U.S. alone, 2.7 trillion gallons of water are lost to NRW every year, costing water utilities more than US$6.4 billion annually in unrealized revenue. Given the scale of the issue–volumes and dollars–NRW presents an opportunity for upscaling utility management. 

The underground nature of drinking water infrastructure—and the sheer size of the U.S. distribution system, containing over 2.2 million miles of pipe nationwide—means that problems often go undetected for long periods of time. Even when leaks or breaks are identified, limited funding and workforce shortages can delay repairs. In Jackson, Mississippi, a broken mainline pipe discovered in 2016 wasn’t repaired until 2023. By that time, an estimated five million gallons of treated drinking water leaked per day—enough to fill more than seven Olympic-sized swimming pools.

Water loss reduction efforts are fairly commonplace among U.S. utilities. Just over 67% of utilities surveyed by the American Water Works Association in 2023 reported having a water loss control program either fully implemented or in the process of implementation. However, this is a marked decline from over 77% reported in 2020. As numerous systems report water losses above acceptable thresholds, leaking much-needed revenue into the ground, more action remains to alleviate this ubiquitous issue across the water industry.

Accordingly, utilities across the U.S. are adopting innovative strategies to reduce NRW—benefiting both their bottom lines and their customers.

Leveraging digital solutions to proactively address water loss: Utilities are increasingly using digital tools to promptly detect and address both real and apparent losses. Technologies such as drones, leak noise correlators, and predictive analytics help identify hidden leaks in difficult-to-access areas. Improved data management systems also help reduce apparent losses by minimizing entry errors and ensuring more accurate water loss audits. Meanwhile, customer engagement platforms such as smart billing systems and customer information portals enable consumers to monitor their water use in real time and catch leaks early. Smart meter and Internet of Things (IoT) devices allow for remote meter reading and data collection, reducing the need for manual inspections and easing the burden on limited utility staff.

Proper infrastructure maintenance will reduce real losses: Routine maintenance and regular monitoring are critical for mitigating water loss. Over the past three decades, operational expenditure (OPEX) has been outpacing capital expenditure (CAPEX) for utilities in the water sector maintaining aging systems worsened by long-deferred infrastructural investments. Utilities are taking sure-footed steps to minimize real losses, including implementing corrosion control measures, conducting regular leak detection surveys, and optimizing pressure management to prevent pipe bursts. Utilities have also been successful in segmenting systems into District Metered Areas (DMAs) for better monitoring and billing accuracy.

Consistent water loss audits and standards are essential: Industry-wide adoption of standardized water loss auditing practices can also foster a more cohesive national response to NRW. Guidelines such as the AWWA M36 methodology offer a structured approach to conducting audits and implementing control programs. However, only 10 U.S. states currently require use of these standards, leading to a fragmented and inconsistent utility reporting landscape. Without data validation, errors such as negative water loss figures or incorrect units can compromise reporting accuracy.

Even in states without mandates, many utilities voluntarily participate in water loss programs to build best practices. Setting system-wide thresholds (e.g., establishing an acceptable limit of 15% leakage) can help prioritize water loss as a key performance metric. Smaller utilities may also conduct customer censuses to verify service accounts and reduce unauthorized consumption.

Partnerships and collaboration are key: Tight budgets and mounting affordability pressures make NRW a difficult challenge. The U.S. water utility landscape is highly fragmented, with an enormous variation in system sizes and capacities. In fact, a reported 85% of U.S. water utilities employ three or fewer staff members, making it especially difficult for smaller systems to develop and sustain comprehensive water loss control programs.

The type and extent of NRW mitigation can depend on various factors, including system size and ownership (i.e., public vs. private), regional policies, and reporting requirements. With the right partnerships and tools in place, utilities can take meaningful steps toward reducing water loss, boosting system efficiency, and delivering greater value to their customers. 

Utilities can benefit and enhance their operations by collaborating with academic institutions, which can provide additional staff support through volunteer initiatives and research programs. Furthermore, by forming partnerships with nearby utilities, particularly smaller systems aligning with larger ones, utilities can share resources and access a broader knowledge network. Additionally, engaging with industry service providers, such as engineering firms and third-party contractors, can offer utilities valuable technological solutions and extra manpower. 

Non-revenue water may often fly under the radar, but its impacts are deeply felt on utility budgets and the quality of service delivered to consumers. As water systems across the U.S. face growing financial pressures and aging infrastructure, addressing NRW is not just a technical challenge­—it’s a strategic imperative that will benefit us all.

The post Tackling the Trillion-Gallon Problem: Water Loss Reduction Initiatives Benefit Utilities and Consumers Alike appeared first on Bluefield Research.

This strategy marks a step forward, bringing together a host of fragmented water directives under a unified vision. While previous EU policies—such as the Water Framework Directive and the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD)—have laid important groundwork, they have often lacked cohesion, clear funding pathways, and strong enforcement mechanisms. The WRS seeks to address these gaps by providing a comprehensive and forward-looking approach to managing Europe’s water challenges. 

Why now? The case for a water resilience strategy. Europe’s water sector is under growing strain, making resilience measures a top priority. Climate change has intensified droughts, floods, and extreme weather events, with 30% of Europe’s population experiencing water stress. Without intervention, the financial cost of climate-related damage could reach €45.9 billion annually by the 2050s. At the same time, the region faces significant infrastructure challenges—only 37% of European surface waters meet ecological health standards, and contaminants such as per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances are becoming more difficult and costly to remove, with remediation estimates exceeding €100.0 billion per year. 

Beyond environmental concerns, the strategy responds to a pressing need for investment. Bluefield Research estimates €437 billion in water and wastewater infrastructure capital expenditure investment between 2024 and 2030, scaling from €55 billion annually in 2024 to €69 billion by 2030. Yet, despite these figures, securing and disbursing funds efficiently remains a challenge. By mid-2024, only 20% of climate-related Recovery and Resilience Facility funds had been allocated, highlighting gaps in financial execution.

What the strategy aims to achieve. The Commission has structured its plan around three core priorities: restoring and protecting the water cycle, ensuring clean and affordable water for all, and promoting a competitive EU water industry. These objectives are designed to provide a coordinated, long-term framework that balances environmental protection, economic resilience, and public health. 

Restoring and protecting the water cycle is a fundamental part of the strategy, focusing on strengthening natural water systems to mitigate climate risks and enhance biodiversity. This means improved watershed management, better flood and drought response measures, and stronger protections for freshwater resources. A resilient water system safeguards ecosystems and supports industries and communities that depend on reliable water supplies. 

Ensuring clean and affordable water for all remains a critical goal. Water quality regulations have been tightening across the EU, particularly in response to growing concerns over pollution and emerging contaminants. The revised UWWTD, which entered into force on 1 January 2025, expands its original scope by introducing stricter discharge limits and compliance requirements for smaller communities. The challenge, however, lies in implementation. Many member states continue to struggle with wastewater collection, nitrate control, and effluent quality due to financial and technical constraints. 

Promoting a competitive EU water industry will also be key to achieving resilience. By investing in digitalization, efficiency, and circular economy principles, the strategy aims to drive innovation across the sector. The European digital water market, already larger than the market in the U.S, is expected to grow from €12.6 billion in 2024 to €25.0 billion by 2033. Utilities are increasingly deploying smart meters, Internet-of-Things sensors, and AI-powered analytics to optimize operations, reduce energy use, and enhance compliance. Engineering consulting firms are crucial in helping utilities navigate this digital transition, integrating new technologies with existing infrastructure while managing workflow design and change management.

Challenges and gaps: Can the strategy deliver? Despite its ambition, the strategy faces notable hurdles. One of the primary challenges is regulatory fragmentation. A patchwork of directives has historically governed water management in the EU—each focusing on a specific aspect, such as drinking water, wastewater, floods, or marine environments, and governments. While the WRS aims to unify these efforts, inconsistent implementation at the national level remains a persistent issue. Member states have varied levels of enforcement, and infringement procedures for non-compliance are often slow and ineffective. Fundamentally, the absence of commitment and targets among member states presents a marked barrier to rollout. 

Funding and execution also present obstacles. The strategy emphasizes investment, yet the EU’s track record in disbursing water-related funds efficiently is mixed. For example, Spain has received substantial EU support for digitalizing urban and irrigation water systems, but delays in fund allocation and project implementation have hindered progress. These delays raise concerns about whether the new strategy will be able to mobilize funding at the level required for meaningful change. 

Another key issue is the balance between stricter regulations and industry feasibility. The updated UWWTD addresses pollution with a polluter-pays principle, placing a more significant financial burden on industries. While this approach incentivizes cleaner practices, it also risks creating friction between regulatory bodies and industrial water users, particularly in sectors where compliance costs are high. Many utilities and companies lack the financial or technical resources to meet new standards, which could slow adoption and widen regional disparities. 

What’s next? Europe’s road to a resilient water future. Despite these challenges, the WRS would set an essential foundation for future European water governance and investment. By playing from Europe’s Green Deal, the water resilience strategy strengthens the case for a long-term commitment to sustainable water management. It could also pave the way for the European Blue Deal, a long-discussed but yet-to-be-proposed initiative focused on water security and innovation. 

To ensure the plan’s success, the EU must prioritize enforcement, streamline funding mechanisms, and strengthen coordination across existing directives. Transforming high-level policy into tangible action hinges on critical steps—setting binding resilience targets, creating flexible financing options for utilities, and aligning water priorities with broader climate and industrial policies.

The coming years will determine whether the WRS will be a turning point for Europe’s water sector or another well-intended framework without teeth. The momentum is there; the challenge now is translating ambition into results. Bluefield Research is closely tracking policy developments, funding allocations, and industry responses as this strategy unfolds, providing insight into the future of water resilience in Europe.

The post The EU’s Water Resilience Strategy (WRS): An Audacious Goal—Will It Make an Impact? appeared first on Bluefield Research.

The recent recognition and coming regulation of PFAS in the water cycle has focused public attention on biosolids. The U.S. EPA appears poised to regulate in response. In June 2024, the agency released a risk assessment framework for PFAS in biosolids and expects to release a report on PFAS in biosolids in late 2024. Even though the degree to which municipal biosolids contain PFAS is unsettled, increasing public skepticism over the use of biosolids in agriculture and potential regulatory testing requirements are upending the low-cost status quo of utilities’ biosolids disposal. Compliance with PFAS regulations will complicate biosolids management for utilities, creating opportunities for companies that can help utilities navigate such challenges.

Here are a few things to consider:

Utilities increasingly view municipal wastewater treatment as an opportunity for resource recovery—a practice as old as agriculture.

Humans have spread their waste (even household excrement or ‘nightsoil’) on agricultural fields for millennia, and the crop health benefits of this practice have been documented throughout history. In the 19th century, however, growing industrialized cities installed indoor plumbing to protect public health. Out of sight and out of mind, ‘nightsoil’ was classified as wastewater rather than a potentially valuable material. 

As chemical fertilizers gained popularity, Western society further lost touch with land application as a beneficial waste disposal technique. The passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972 led municipalities to construct centralized systems to treat household effluent to meet federal standards. Such systems produce large quantities of mostly pathogen-free organic byproducts during treatment, also known as biosolids. 

Utilities and farmers partnered on a mutually beneficial resource recovery practice that has become ubiquitous. Farmers received inexpensive fertilizers, while utilities gained a low-cost disposal outlet. Some organizations went further, processing their biosolids into saleable products such as Bloom, Milorganite, and Loop brand fertilizers. In recent years, sustainability initiatives have expanded efforts to beneficially use biosolids to sequester carbon in soil and produce renewable natural gas.  

The focus on PFAS has moved biosolids into the spotlight

Unfortunately, while conventional wastewater treatment destroys pathogens and biological waste, it fails to remove emerging contaminants like pharmaceuticals and microplastics. PFAS are no exception; the aptly named ‘forever chemicals’ make their way from household goods into treatment plants and then biosolids with little degradation. 

Municipal biosolids typically contain minimal PFAS compared to those produced treating industrial wastewater; however, municipalities and landowners have raised concerns about their use on farmlands due to the enduring and accumulative nature of PFAS contamination, the stringency of the limits the EPA has set for PFAS in drinking water, and the legal designation that PFAS are hazardous.

Unprompted by the EPA, several states have moved to regulate the land application of biosolids. In April 2022, Maine notably banned biosolids’ use in agriculture entirely; however, diminishing landfill capacity and conflict with the state’s climate goals may lead to the loosening of this ban in the near future. In contrast, Michigan’s approach includes mandatory testing and use restrictions based on results. New York has since copied this strategy, which appears to be the most likely model for future national regulations. While the EPA has not yet formally regulated PFAS in biosolids, utilities may choose to reevaluate their management strategies as traditional disposal methods become more expensive or unavailable.

Solutions providers can help utilities adjust their biosolids management strategies

Many opportunities exist for companies to help utilities improve their biosolids handling. Biosolids are often more than 75% water by weight; when disposal involves off-site trucking, utilities will look to cut costs by further drying biosolids via thermal or mechanical means. Seemingly in response, the biosolids management company Synagro has expanded its drying and processing capabilities via acquisitions, most recently with its purchase of the New England Fertilizer Co. in May 2023.

Biosolids’ varying composition necessitates specialized testing methods; where required, companies like Aprisium may find opportunities to help utilities scale on-site capabilities with advanced equipment or a testing-as-a-service. Most importantly, as traditional biosolids-related revenue streams disappear or become more difficult to access, utilities will seek alternative ways to recover treatment costs. 

Technologies that sequester or eliminate PFAS in biosolids while producing a saleable product are highly attractive propositions for cost recovery. For example, pyrolysis solutions like those offered by Bioforcetech aim to produce energy and usable biochar while thermally destroying PFAS. Other companies, such as 374Water, offer solutions that require minimal pretreatment and produce nonhazardous effluent. While these technologies are developing, their potential to unlock cost recovery in the face of PFAS regulations has fueled significant investment and academic study.

Regulations, like CERCLA, will add complications for risk-averse utilities

EPA’s designation of two PFAS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as ‘Superfund,’ leaves publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and the recipients of their biosolids in a state of legal uncertainty. Under CERCLA, utilities could be liable for substantial remediation costs if the destination of their (unknowingly PFAS-contaminated) biosolids becomes a Superfund site. 

Since its designation, EPA clarified that it will focus enforcement on parties that substantially contributed to PFAS releases—namely major manufacturers and federal facilities—and does not intend to pursue parties who were unknowing receivers of PFAS. However, this does not shield POTWs from third-party lawsuits by private companies or environmental groups, nor is it a guarantee – enforcement is ultimately up to the EPA’s discretion. 

In April 2024, a bipartisan group of U.S. representatives introduced the Water Systems PFAS Liability Protection Act to codify a CERCLA exemption for POTWs; despite a growing list of cosponsors, the bill has not left subcommittee review. Even if legally exempted from CERCLA, some utilities may need to defend their use of biosolids in the court of public opinion. Concerns over legal and reputational risks may make utilities more wary of untested technologies that may leave them with future liabilities beyond stranded assets. 

Ultimately, concerns over PFAS will encourage many U.S. utilities to reevaluate their biosolids disposal strategies, even beyond those legally required to do so. Companies that allow utilities to expand their management options will stand to benefit.

The post PFAS Put a Spotlight on Biosolids – Regulations Are Still Catching Up appeared first on Bluefield Research.