Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Implications of Social Distancing Policies on Drinking Water
Infrastructure: An Overview of the Challenges to and Responses of
U.S. Utilities during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Lauryn A. Spearing, Nathalie Thelemaque, Jessica A. Kaminsky, Lynn E. Katz, Kerry A. Kinney,
Mary Jo Kirisits, Lina Sela, and Kasey M. Faust*
Cite This: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00229
Read Online
ACCESS Metrics & More Article Recommendations *
sıSupporting Information
ABSTRACT: Social distancing policies (SDPs) implemented throughout
the United States in response to COVID-19 have led to spatial and
temporal shifts in drinking water demand and, for water utilities, created
sociotechnical challenges. During this unique period, many water utilities
have been forced to operate outside of design conditions with reduced
workforce and financial capacities. Few studies have examined how water
utilities respond to a pandemic; such methods are even absent from many
emergency response plans. Here, we documented how utilities have been
impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted a qualitative analysis
of 30 interviews with 53 practitioners spanning 28 U.S. water utilities. Our
aim was to, first, understand the challenges experienced by utilities and
changes to operations (e.g., demand and deficit accounts) and, second, to
document utilities’responses. Results showed that to maintain service
continuity and implement SDPs, utilities had to overcome various challenges. These include supply chain issues, spatiotemporal
changes in demand, and financial losses, and these challenges were largely dependent on the type of customers served (e.g.,
commercial or residential). Examples of utilities’responses include proactively ordering extra supplies and postponing capital
projects. Although utilities’adaptations ensured the immediate provision of water services, their responses might have negative
repercussions in the future (e.g., delayed projects contributing to aging infrastructure).
KEYWORDS: drinking water, pandemic planning, infrastructure management, population dynamics, social distancing policies
1. INTRODUCTION
The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically changed, at least
temporarily, the way society, businesses, and infrastructure
systems operate. In March 2020, local governments throughout
the United States enacted a number of social distancing
policies (SDPs), encouraging people to stay home and limit
gatherings. These SDPs impacted water utility operations, as
utilities had to ensure continuous services and the safety of
their staff, while in many cases operating beyond their budgets
and design conditions. The American Water Works Associa-
tion (AWWA) found, for example, that utilities faced obstacles
concerning workforce management, revenue loss, and supply
chain for personal protective equipment (PPE).
1
In general, utilities were challenged to quickly implement
SDPs in their operations, often without guidance from their
emergency response plans even though previous reports
identified pandemics as a potential hazard to water systems.
2,3
One such study
4
investigated utilities’preparedness for
pandemics using a survey of 50 Ohio utilities. Their study
discussed potential issues (e.g., employee absenteeism and
supply chain issues) and provides a template for pandemic
plans. More recent work that focuses on COVID-19 has
started to fill the gap in the pandemic planning literature for
the water sector
5−9
as well as for other infrastructure systems
(e.g., wastewater
10,11
). For instance, Cotterill et al.
9
utilized a
survey deployed in the U.K. to understand the impact of
COVID-19 on the water sector. They found that a range of
challenges can arise (e.g., IT-related along with health and
well-being) and that communication is critical when
responding to a pandemic. In a recent commentary, Neal
5
discussed how COVID-19 has impacted the water sector and
systems dependent on water, such as food production and
industry. Neal described COVID-19 as a threat multiplier and
recommends improved governance approaches. Similarly,
Sowby
6
reviewed emergency preparedness policies by
Received: November 5, 2020
Revised: December 18, 2020
Accepted: December 21, 2020
Articlepubs.acs.org/estwater
© XXXX American Chemical Society A
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00229
ACS EST Water XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Made available for limited times for personal research and study only license.
Downloaded via 191.96.63.106 on January 2, 2021 at 14:09:34 (UTC).
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.
anecdotally discussing utilities’experiences during the COVID-
19 pandemic. Other work
7
has focused on technology in the
water sector, hypothesizing that the COVID-19 pandemic will
accelerate the ongoing water sector digital revolution.
12
Aside
from the focus on water sector management during COVID-
19, researchers have also started to investigate how social
distancing has impacted water demand.
13,14
A study based in
southern Italy discovered that people used water differently
when SDPs were enacted (e.g., delayed morning peak and no
lunchtime peak) and that the absence of commuters led to
noticeable demand decreases in certain cities. Overall, there
was a lack of pandemic-focused literature for the water sector
before COVID-19, but in response, many researchers are now
beginning to study the implications of pandemics on water
infrastructure systems.
In addition to examining the pandemic-specific literature, we
turn to population dynamics to understand SDPs as they can
be conceptualized as a form of population change (i.e., the
spatial demands on a system change when businesses close and
some people work from home). Previous research has
investigated water infrastructure system management in
shrinking (i.e., cities that face population decline),
15
urbaniz-
ing,
16
gentrifying,
17
and hosting
18
cities (i.e., cities that receive
displaced populations). Researchers have recognized that water
infrastructure systems struggle to adapt to population
dynamics due to limited flexibility with fixed systems designed
to operate under specific conditions and government
regulations.
16
The process of urbanization, for instance, can
complicate existing infrastructure plans and create the need for
capital projects, which might be challenging to fund. Faust and
colleagues
15,19,20
studied extensively how shrinking cities
manage water infrastructure, finding that utilities struggle to
decommission water infrastructure. Faure and Faust
17
studied
water infrastructure operations in gentrifying areas, focusing on
altered sociodemographics and density. Existing work has
explored many types of population dynamics, but to the best of
our knowledge, researchers have yet to frame pandemic-
induced SDPs as population dynamics when studying water
infrastructure management. Notably, studies focused on
capturing how demand changes (i.e., human−infrastructure
interactions) impact the performance of water systems enable
researchers to understand system vulnerabilities and leverage
points (i.e., how an action might impact system perform-
ance).
21
The existing literature on pandemic planning and population
dynamics for water utilities is limited. As such, we have little
knowledge of how water utilities adapt and respond to
pandemics. Although recent studies have begun to fill this gap,
scholars have recognized that researchers might be able to
identify large-scale challenges and clarify results from existing
COVID-19 research in the water sector by conducting
semistructured interviews.
9
Hence, we use semistructured
interviews to document the experience, during the COVID-19
pandemic, of U.S. drinking water utilities. Our aim is twofold:
(1) to understand the changes to system operations and
challenges faced by utilities and (2) to study their response to
challenges emerging during the pandemic. Our study is
enabled by an inductive qualitative analysis of interviews and
focus groups from 28 utilities. Our work on water utility
operations during a pandemic will provide further theoretical
evidence to underpin future research into the necessity of
incorporating diverse water use profiles and consideration of
population dynamics for resilient operations.
By exploring the implications of SDPs on water utilities,
utilities can learn about more proactive approaches that will be
immediately relevant if there are additional waves in the
COVID-19 pandemic. A research area that has been of great
interest to both national and global organizations
2,22
is building
a set of best practices and increasing utility resilience to future
extreme events. The first step in enhancing this research area is
to collect and analyze data to identify a range of approaches
employed. Notably, operational data and institutional experi-
ences often go unpreserved in utility records. In this study, we
capture and document these lessons learned, which would
otherwise erode with time and personnel changes. The results
of our study will provide valuable information to utilities as
they plan for future disasters or develop continuity plans. In
fact, during the initial weeks of COVID-19, a survey of U.S.
utilities found that only 55% of utilities had a business
continuity plan, while an additional 27% of utilities were in the
process of developing one.
23
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Serving as data for this study are 26 semistructured interviews
and four focus groups (with four or more interviewees) with
water utilities across the United States. Importantly, inter-
viewees considered the gathering of pandemic planning
information to be important and were willing to share their
insight and learn from one another. Although some utilities in
ourstudyprovidemultipleinfrastructureservices(e.g.,
wastewater), we tailored the interviews and qualitative analysis
around the provision of drinking water. This includes processes
involved in treating water for drinking (e.g., operations
facilities and testing), distributing water to users, maintaining
physical infrastructure, and managing this process (e.g., supply
chain for treatment chemicals or testing equipment, managing
workforce, and customer relations). We studied the roles of
multiple utility employees such as operators, maintenance field
staff, lab staffthat perform regulatory testing, customer service
representatives, and managers. The qualitative analysis
examined how these processes were disrupted by the
COVID-19 pandemic (reducing face-to-face contact with
customers, adjusting workflow to ensure social distancing,
changed water demands, etc.).
2.1. Data Sources and Collection. Interviewees were
selected using both convenience and snowball sampling. We
first utilized our professional network to contact practitioners
at utilities across the United States (i.e., convenience
sampling). At the end of each interview, we asked the
interviewee for contact recommendations (i.e., snowball
sampling). Interviews were conducted until theoretical
saturation of ideas was met, meaning no new information
emerged during multiple interviews.
26
Prior to data collection,
the interview questions were reviewed by the Institutional
Review Board at The University of Texas at Austin and The
University of Washington. Participants were invited to
participate through email, and interviews were conducted
using online video conferencing, recorded (with permission),
and transcribed. Interviews were approximately one hour in
duration. The interview process started on June 8, 2020 (∼3
months after federal social distancing recommendations were
enacted
25
) and ended on August 3, 2020. The data set
represents insight from 53 utility employees at 28 utilities
spanning 13 states. See Table 1 for more details about
interviewees. Size classifications are based on the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s Community Water System
ACS ES&T Water pubs.acs.org/estwater Article
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00229
ACS EST Water XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
B
Survey
27
with an additional category (>1 million customers).
Interviewees’experience ranged from 2 to 30 years.
We asked questions focused on understanding how utilities
were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We began
interviews with broad questions about the pandemic to
provoke thoughtful responses and then followed initial
discussions with specific questions (e.g., about disinfectant
residuals and the supply chain). Example interview questions
are as follows: (1) In your experience, how has COVID-19
impacted your utility? (2) Do you think your customers are
using water differently during shutdowns? (3) Did you have
any supply chain issues? (4) Did the utility activate an
emergency response plan?
2.2. Qualitative Analysis. All interviews were transcribed
and then coded in a qualitative coding research database. Each
excerpt was first categorized as a challenge/change or a
response. We defined a challenge/change as obstacles faced by
utilities to provide water services (e.g., lack of staff) or a change
to the system (e.g., change in demand). A response was
defined as anything a utility did to respond to or counteract
challenges. Although the research questions provided a
framework for analysis, we took an inductive analysis approach;
excerpts were coded on the basis of emergent, general
categories (Table 2) as opposed to predefined codes. These
parent codes show broad thematic ideas, while excerpts also
were coded by more specific ideas and are shown in the results
(i.e., child codes). Coding was completed by two researchers,
with excerpts reviewed by both researchers. In addition, the
coding was validated through an intercoder reliability check (κ
= 0.86), achieving a κvalue considered satisfactory for
qualitative research.
24,28
This κvalue was calculated on the
basis of 24 excerpts coded by both researchers.
2.3. Limitations. We used our data set to draw
generalizable recommendations, despite sampling only a subset
of U.S. utilities. Although this limits the implications that can
be made, we conducted interviews until no new information
emerged from subsequent interviews,
26
indicating that the
themes revealed in our study can be used to draw conclusions
and recommend practical management strategies. In addition,
we captured experiences from 28 utilities in varying geographic
regions of the United States (see Table 1). Notably, the
resulting frequencies do not necessarily indicate the intensity
or prevalence of an issue. For example, a frequency of 10
excerpts for one challenge compared to two excerpts for
another does not indicate that one issue was more challenging;
rather, this finding captures awareness. In turn, instead of
solely relying on frequency tables (Tables 3 and 4), we present
how utilities experienced certain challenges or responded in
certain ways through visualizations (Figures 1 and 2).
The COVID-19 pandemic was rapidly changing during the
data collection period. Each geographic region experienced
outbreaks at different times, and there were notable geographic
variations in SDPs, enforcement, and compliance. It is
important to note that this almost certainly impacts the
changes observed by utilities. For instance, respondents’
discussions may vary on the basis of the severity of an
outbreak in their region at the interview time. We believe that
the relatively short data collection period (∼2 months) reduces
Table 1. Information about Respondents
state no. of
interviewees roles EPA size classification
26
(no. of
customers)
Alabama 1 Water Resources Management Director 10,001−100,000
Arizona 1 Water Director 10,001−100,000
Arizona 1 General Manager 10,001−100,000
Arizona 1 Operations Manager 100,001−1 million
Arizona 1 Deputy Director 100,001−1 million
California 1 Operations and Maintenance Director 100,001−1 million
California 1 Operations Manager >1 million
California 4
a
varying roles 100,001−1 million
California 1 Assistant General Manager of Operations/Engineering 100,001−1 million
California 6
a
varying roles >1 million
Colorado 2 Deputy Director of Public Works, Drinking Water Program Supervisor 100,001−1 million
Colorado 2 Project Manager, Senior Lead Operator 10,001−100,000
Connecticut 1 Supply Operations Manager 100,001−1 million
Kentucky 2 Vice President of Communications and Marketing, Manager of Distribution Water
Quality 100,001−1 million
Massachusetts 1 Assistant Superintendent 10,001−100,000
Michigan 1 Water Quality Manager 100,001−1 million
Michigan 1 Deputy Director of Water & Wastewater 100,001−1 million
New Jersey 1 Superintendent 100,001−1 million
Oregon 1 Water Quality Manager >1 million
Oregon 2 Director of Water Quality & Treatment, Human Resources Manager 100,001−1 million
Texas 2 Assistant Director, Supervising Engineer >1 million
Texas 1 Water Treatment and Compliance Manager 10,001−100,000
Texas 4
a
varying roles >1 million
Texas 1 Building Manager university campus
b
Utah 1 Water Quality & Treatment Administrator 100,001−1 million
Washington 1 Senior Environmental Specialist 100,001−1 million
Washington 1 Senior Water Quality Engineer >1 million
Washington 10
a
varying roles 100,001−1 million
a
Focus group conducted online.
b
Interview with practitioners at a university campus.
ACS ES&T Water pubs.acs.org/estwater Article
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00229
ACS EST Water XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
C
the temporal aspect of this limitation but do not feel our data
set was large enough to draw conclusions about how these
differences may have influenced our results. More granular
research is needed to better understand this and other
consequences of SDPs.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Although each utility has unique characteristics, some common
challenges (Table 3 and Figure 1) and responses to such
challenges (Table 4 and Figure 2) emerged from the data.
Tables 3 and 4show the frequencies of each code and the
count of utilities that had excerpts coded to the theme. Figures
1and 2provide a visualization of what percent of utilities
experienced certain challenges or performed certain actions in
response. The figures also show what percent of utilities did
not experience or did not mention the respective challenges or
responses. Here we will discuss the larger thematic categories
as outlined in Table 2.
3.1. Planning and Management. More than half of the
coded excerpts were related to planning and management.
Overall, utilities felt that SDPs dramatically changed the way
utilities were managed. One interviewee said the stay-at-home
orders “took [their] organization and flipped it on its head”,
while another mentioned that although the mission was
unchanged“to provide uninterrupted, reliable, sustainable
utility services”they had to do it under new circumstances.
As expected, these changes came with challenges, specifically in
planning, workforce management, and supply chain.
3.1.1. Planning. Utilities conveyed that a lack of pandemic
planning hindered their ability to quickly respond; they had to
first “learn how to respond to [a] pandemic”. Approximately
one-third (32%) of utilities activated their emergency response
plan, while other utilities (46%) created or improved existing
pandemic plans (see Figure 2 for information about the
utilities that did not perform these actions or did not mention
or know if the response was taken). Notably, only 39% of
utilities noted that pandemic planning was incorporated in
existing emergency response plans prior to COVID-19 (see
Figure 1 for information about the utilities that did not
experience this challenge or did not mention or know if they
did). Many respondents noted that the COVID-19 pandemic
allowed them to create improved or new pandemic plans and
that they would be more prepared for future pandemics.
3.1.2. Workforce Management. Workforce management
comprised 50% of challenges and 55% of responses coded
under the planning and management theme. One interviewee
said it was a “delicate balance of [continuing] to maintain
operations and provide safe drinking water to people while
protecting our personnel”, and another called it a “labor-
management administrative nightmare”. Utilities took various
actions to ensure the safety of their staff(e.g., social distancing
policies, shifts, and vehicle policies) and, as the potential risk
varied, generally tailored their workforce policies to employees’
roles (see Table 4). For instance, the risk of contracting
COVID-19 when working will likely be lower for field staff
compared to employees that work at a large treatment plant. At
many utilities, field staffcontinued to work with adjustments
such as using temporary facilities or taking their work vehicles
home so they did not have to go into the office.
What was of utmost importance to utilities within the
treatment plants was the safety of their operators. One utility
observed that it would be traumatic to have just one of their
operators unable to work. In turn, utilities took proactive steps
Table 2. Coding Dictionary for Interview Excerpts
code definition example of a challenge/change excerpt example of an action excerpt
planning and
management
related to planning and management
(including personnel and supply
chain)
“Staffing: really, really, really challenging.”“We developed kind of an annex to (our emergency response plan), and we
kind of call it our COVID operations plan.”
technical
system
related to the technical system (e.g.,
demand, operations, water quality,
and maintenance)
“From a water quality perspective, we have had some challenge in having that turnover the way we
would like to see it.”
“We’ve had to design a whole new chemical feed system.”
finances related to finances of the utility (e.g.,
billing and revenue)
“It’s a big deal to me that my revenue is down 70%.”“Well, we actually did refinance something; we’drefinance some loans or
bonds.”
community-
related
related with the community (e.g.,
engagement and complaints)
“There’ve been people that are concerned that any change in the water, taste, smell, color, anything
like that, their first inclination is that it’s infected somehow.”
“But even with that then, our communication with the public had changed,
really for the better though. It increased the amount of communication and
the methods that we used.”
regulatory re-
quirements
and testing
related with adhering to regulatory
requirements or general testing
“One of the ways that this has directly impacted us, is that this is my year for tri-annual lead and
copper sampling. But dealing with customers and getting into their homes and arranging sampling
is a lot more difficult in the pandemic. ”
“In my distribution system, one of the things that we did was we moved all of
our routine monitoring sites to not be in commonly used public places.”
ACS ES&T Water pubs.acs.org/estwater Article
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00229
ACS EST Water XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
D
such as making treatment plants restricted access, putting
operators on shifts, and setting up secondary control stations.
Notably, the size of the utility and the design of the water
treatment plant impact the amount of contact operators have
with others. For instance, one utility that serves fewer than
100,000 people had limited workforce challenges at their
treatment plant because it was not necessary to staffthe
treatment plant 24/7. The challenge of protecting operators
presents a significant vulnerability in water systems as there are
often few people trained for each system. Despite recent
technological innovations, operators are still critical to the
water system due to their supervisory role.
12
With an aging
workforce and a limited pool of qualified talent, water utilities
were, even prior to the pandemic, struggling with a lack of
staff.
29
This was exacerbated during the pandemic as some staff
retired early, were unable to work without childcare, or
decided to not work due to preexisting conditions that put
them at increased risk if they were to contract COVID-19.
Table 3. Select Portion of a Frequency Table of Challenges and Changes Faced by Utilities during the COVID-19 Pandemic
(see the Supporting Information for the full table; relative frequency is the percent of all excerpts coded as challenges or
changes)
qualitative code
no. of
utilities
no. of responses
(relative
frequency)
excerpts about COVID-related challenges or
changes
28 410 (100.0%)
planning and management 28 205 (50.0%)
institutional collaboration (e.g., conferences
canceled, working with government/unions)
5 8 (2.0%)
internal communication (e.g., loss of adjacency,
between shift changes)
10 16 (3.9%)
planning 12 19 (4.6%)
adapting and planning to ensure continuity
of services
4 5 (1.2%)
lack of pandemic preparation (e.g., public
health knowledge, pandemic plans)
9 11 (2.7%)
managing a prolonged event vs a discrete
disaster
3 3 (0.7%)
supply chain 27 60 (14.6%)
difficulty procuring or worry about routine
supplies (e.g., chemicals, valves)
16 30 (7.3%)
difficulty procuring personal protective
equipment (PPE) or sanitation materials
20 30 (7.3%)
workforce-related 25 102 (24.9%)
lack of staff during pandemic (e.g., family
leave, retiring early)
7 12 (2.9%)
personnel management 21 58 (14.1%)
ensuring safety of operations staff 4 8 (2.0%)
providing emotional support 1 2 (0.5%)
implementing social distancing and
sanitation protocols
15 25 (6.1%)
increased workload for managers 6 8 (2.0%)
training new staff 3 3 (0.7%)
transitioning technology to work from
home (e.g., IT issues)
10 12 (2.9%)
adjusting workflow (e.g., delays, challenges
working from home)
3 3 (0.7%)
workforce’s perceptions and attitudes (e.g.,
morale, different views, resistance to
change)
11 29 (7.1%)
technical system 25 109 (26.6%)
demand and water use 24 91 (22.2%)
change in demand (total, patterns) based on
user type
20 69 (16.8%)
commercial 14 18 (4.4%)
decrease in demand 13 17 (4.1%)
slight increase in demand 1 1 (0.2%)
decrease in industrial demand 6 8 (2.0%)
decrease in outdoor entertainment (e.g.,
golf course, water park)
2 2 (0.5%)
residential 15 26 (6.3%)
change in residential demand curve
(e.g., peaks reduced, morning peak
delayed)
7 8 (2.0%)
qualitative code
no. of
utilities
no. of responses
(relative
frequency)
increased demand 12 18 (4.4%)
residential increase offset commercial
decrease
7 7 (1.7%)
decrease in demands at universities or
similar to holiday breaks
6 8 (2.0%)
overall system demand 13 22 (5.4%)
decrease in overall demand 10 15 (3.7%)
increase in overall demand 3 7 (1.7%)
continuing maintenance (e.g., delayed response,
with social distancing)
3 3 (0.7%)
decrease in pipe breaks 2 3 (0.7%)
water quality 6 12 (2.9%)
disinfectant residuals 4 6 (1.5%)
higher than normal residuals 1 1 (0.2%)
low residuals 3 5 (1.2%)
managing water quality 4 6 (1.5%)
finances 21 58 (14.1%)
billing (e.g., customer payments, rates, revenue) 20 54 (13.2%)
billing cycle altered due to challenges
reading meters
1 1 (0.2%)
policies about no shut-offs or rate increases
led to challenges
7 7 (1.7%)
increase in delinquencies or enrollment in
customer assistance programs
13 25 (6.1%)
revenue change 14 21 (5.1%)
decrease in revenue 12 19 (4.6%)
increase in revenue 2 2 (0.5%)
change in spending or financial capacity (e.g.,
negative financial impacts, delayed budget)
4 4 (1.0%)
community-related 14 25 (6.1%)
adapting outreach and communication strategies
(e.g., virtual issues, delays responding)
5 8 (2.0%)
customer calls or complaints 9 14 (3.4%)
decrease in customer calls (e.g., because no
shut-offs)
4 6 (1.5%)
increase in customer complaints and
concerns (e.g., aesthetics, worry about water
safety)
6 8 (2.0%)
change in public use of utilities’watershed (e.g.,
increase, more trespassing)
3 3 (0.7%)
regulatory requirements and testing 9 13 (3.2%)
challenge adhering to state shutdown guidelines
that change regularly
3 3 (0.7%)
challenge to perform testing (e.g., because in
home, lack of staff, lab supply chain)
8 10 (2.4%)
ACS ES&T Water pubs.acs.org/estwater Article
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00229
ACS EST Water XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
E
Managers mentioned that their jobs drastically changed as
they developed and implemented SDPs. One interviewee said
that “the pandemic was another job packed on top of [their]
job”. Another described adapting to the latest shelter-in-place
orders as an “exhausting exercise”saying that a “new one
comes out every week [and we have to interpret it], which is
not always easy”. With limited pandemic planning in the water
sector, managers struggled to quickly adapt. Utilities noted
that, as they created responses to SDPs, they used best
practices from other organizations (e.g., Water Research
Foundation and American Water Works Association) and
existing examples from other utilities. This could be expected
based on research focused on knowledge-sharing connections
and time savings.
30
In addition, interviewees mentioned that
managing their workforce during a pandemic was outside of
their knowledge and training. For instance, one respondent
said, “I didn’t have training in providing psychological support
to 150 people. All of a sudden I’m being called to do that, to
motivate them, to provide basically emotional support for them
to stay motivated, not to lose focus, and not to just take care of
themselves but take care of their family.”
In addition, managing staffbecame more challenging
because there was a lack of adjacencyno hallway
conversations or face-to-face meetings. In turn, utilities used
technology for communication and implemented new internal
communication strategies (e.g., online COVID-19 resources
and frequent check-ins with employees for emotional support).
3.1.3. Supply Chain. Utilities faced an array of supply chain
issues, from routine supplies (e.g., disinfectant chemicals and
testing materials) to personal protective equipment (PPE). Of
the utilities surveyed, 71% experienced issues procuring the
needed PPE and sanitation materials to operate safely (see
Figure 1 for information about the utilities that did not
experience this challenge or did not mention or know if they
did). Interestingly, many utilities responded creatively to this
challenge. For instance, utilities made certain resources in
house (e.g., hand sanitizer) and one utility even changed their
sampling techniques due to a shortage of alcohol. To clean the
Table 4. Select Portion of a Frequency Table of Utilities’Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic (see the Supporting
Information for the full table; relative frequency is the percent out of all response excerpts)
qualitative code
no. of
utilities
no. of responses
(relative
frequency)
excerpts about utilities’response to COVID-19 28 470 (100.0%)
planning and management 28 331 (70.4%)
change in capital projects (e.g., delayed,
increased during shutdown)
14 17 (3.6%)
increase in institutional collaboration (e.g.,
federal agencies, other utilities)
13 19 (4.0%)
new internal communication plans (e.g.,
regular updates, technology, focus on morale)
12 25 (5.3%)
planning 23 47 (10.0%)
activated/used emergency response plan or
created/improved a pandemic plan
20 28 (6.0%)
other pandemic planning (e.g., front-end
planning, for a possible recession)
14 19 (4.0%)
supply chain 22 42 (8.9%)
became a priority customer to supplier or
found backup supplier
4 4 (0.9%)
innovative actions to meet supply chain
issues (e.g., in-house manufacturing)
6 8 (1.7%)
ordered extra materials 10 13 (2.8%)
reached out to suppliers to ensure
materials
13 14 (3.0%)
used stocked masks 3 3 (0.6%)
workforce-related 28 181 (38.5%)
general shift changes or furloughs for all
staff
7 8 (1.7%)
most or all customer service staff work
from home
4 5 (1.1%)
change in field staff’s workflow (e.g., shifts,
temporary facilities, no time in the office)
17 34 (7.2%)
change in lab staff’s workflow (e.g.,
increased hours, contactless sample
deliveries)
5 6 (1.3%)
change in operation staff’s workflow (e.g.,
restricted access to plants, shifts)
22 35 (7.4%)
change in professional/office staff’s
workflow (e.g., work from home)
21 39 (8.3%)
new workplace policies (e.g., social
distancing, cleaning, leave policies, vehicle
rules)
22 54 (11.5%)
qualitative code
no. of
utilities
no. of responses
(relative
frequency)
technical system 15 32 (6.8%)
noncritical maintenance deferred, slowed, or
stopped at one point
9 14 (3.0%)
contracted cleaning services for bathrooms
around water sources
1 1 (0.2%)
changed physical infrastructure operations
(e.g., shut down plant, adjusted tanks)
1 3 (0.6%)
change in water quality management (e.g.,
chemical dosing or flushing)
8 15 (3.2%)
finances 21 46 (9.8%)
billing (e.g., customer payments, rates,
revenue)
16 23 (4.9%)
expansion of customer assistance programs
(e.g., payment plans, small businesses)
13 18 (3.8%)
rate changes enacted or postponed (e.g.,
increase rates, postponed increase)
4 5 (1.1%)
financing or funding 10 11 (2.3%)
adjusted loans or bonds (e.g., delayed
applying, refinanced)
3 3 (0.6%)
plan to apply for federal funds or tracked
spending in case
7 8 (1.7%)
spending or financial capacity 6 12 (2.6%)
hiring freeze or reduction in hiring 4 5 (1.1%)
increase in expenditures (due to social
distancing policies or expected budget cut)
3 3 (0.6%)
operations and maintenance spending
reductions
2 4 (0.9%)
community-related 20 48 (10.2%)
change in customer service operations (e.g.,
reduced hours, in-person service suspended)
7 9 (1.9%)
adapted outreach strategies (e.g., building
flushing protocols, safety information, virtual)
19 38 (8.1%)
regulatory requirements and testing 7 12 (2.6%)
changed location of monitoring sites or added
additional sites (e.g., public spaces)
6 9 (1.9%)
planned for a reduction in or reduced
nonregulatory testing
2 3 (0.6%)
ACS ES&T Water pubs.acs.org/estwater Article
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00229
ACS EST Water XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
F
taps they were testing, they relied on flaming the spigot, a
method commonly used in the 1990s.
Even for routine supplies, there were supply chain issues.
Utilities were concerned about shortages of multiple chemicals
and resources (e.g., chlorine, carbon dioxide, oxygen, sodium
hypochlorite, and alum). Despite the concern, most utilities
were able to ensure access to these resources by reaching out
to suppliers, ordering early, or becoming a priority customer
(by paying a premium or working with the government).
Notably, utilities did experience delays receiving materials,
especially from abroad. One interviewee, for instance, said,
“We did [order] some specialty valves from Italy. Suffice to say,
we haven’t got them in yet.”Overall, utilities were able to cope
with these supply chain challenges, but in the event of future
disasters, these vulnerabilities could be reduced by improved
planning. For instance, utilities might proactively discuss
becoming a priority customer with their suppliers.
3.1.4. Capital Projects. Lastly, it is important to note that
utilities had to change their plans for capital projects.
Interestingly, one utility was able to accelerate a capital project
at a water treatment plant because it was shut down due to
decreased system demand. Most other utilities experienced the
opposite12 utilities had to delay or scale back projects. This
was due to financial constraints for five utilities, organizational
workforce SDPs for three utilities, supply chain delays for one
utility, and administrative delays due to increased workload for
another (and two utilities did not explicitly describe why).
Respondents pointed out that these changes to capital projects
could create future issues because there is a critical need to
update aging infrastructure and many projects were already
overdue. One respondent said that a capital project delay at the
treatment plant would lead to future water quality issues and
that they could not “keep slapping Band-Aids on something. At
a certain point, it’s going to fail, and who knows when it
[will].”Results focused on management and planning show
that COVID-19 exacerbated existing, widespread water
infrastructure issues such as aging infrastructure and a shortage
of qualified workers. It is worth noting that the pandemic
might accelerate the impacts of these challenges (e.g., earlier
retirements than expected and delaying planned capital
projects).
3.2. Technical System. 3.2.1. Demand, Water Use, and
Pipe Breaks. At many utilities, SDPs altered the spatial
distribution of demand, demand patterns, and overall system
demand. In fact, all but four utilities mentioned some change
or challenge associated with water use (see demand and water
use in Table 3). In terms of demand by customer class, 43% of
utilities mentioned an increase in residential demand, 46%
mentioned a decrease in commercial demand, and 21%
mentioned a decrease in industrial demand (see Figure 1 for
information about the utilities that did not experience these
changes or did not mention or know if they did). Interestingly,
Figure 1. Challenges and changes experienced by responding utilities (not inclusive of all codes; see the Supporting Information for the full
frequency table).
ACS ES&T Water pubs.acs.org/estwater Article
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00229
ACS EST Water XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
G
some utilities reported that there were no changes to demand
for industrial customers because operations continued at
critical services (e.g., transportation and energy). For the total
demand change (see overall demand change in Figure 1 for a
detailed breakdown of utilities’responses to this question),
most utilities saw a decrease (36%) or no change in demand
(32%) while 11% saw an increase in demand. The magnitude
of demand changes varied by utility, with one utility
experiencing 70% less demand than normal. Notably, the
system demand was related to utilities’customer composition;
largely residential utilities tended to see an increase in demand,
while utilities that served large commercial areas or industrial
customers saw a decrease in demand. Many utilities that saw
no change in overall demand attributed it to the fact that the
increase in residential demand offset decreases in commercial
demand (i.e., “a shift between rate classes”).
Practically, pandemic planning should take into account the
composition of a utility’s customers to predict potential
demand changes. When responding to future pandemics,
utilities should look back on experiences during the COVID-19
pandemic. Nevertheless, it is important for managers to realize
that future changes in a utility’s customer base would also
change demands during a pandemic. In turn, population
predictions (i.e., expected demand change) from planning
procedures should be incorporated into pandemic plans.
In addition to system demand changes, some utilities (25%)
mentioned a change in their demand curves for residential
customers (i.e., people were using water differently during the
pandemic). Note that the interview question was asked as
“Were your customers using water differently?”, so the other
75% of utilities either did not mention changes in residential
demand curves, did not know, or said there were no changes.
Three utilities mentioned that the morning peak was delayed,
likely because people working from home were no longer
commuting. One interviewee observed a noticeable change in
demand curves, saying “everything looks like a weekend”.
These temporal demand changes likely increased the risk of
operational issues, but most utilities did not experience notable
problems. For instance, 32% of utilities noted that there were
no pressure issues; 46% said that there was not an increase in
the number of system failures (e.g., pipe breaks), and 25% did
not notice changes in tank turnover (see Figure 1 for
information about the utilities that did not experience these
challenges or did not mention or know if they did).
Conversely, one utility mentioned that their “main break rate
went down dramatically, right as the shelter orders were taking
effect, and [they] didn’t know why”. The interviewee presented
two theories as to why this reduction in the number of breaks
occurred: (1) decreased traffic (i.e., less road vibration) and
(2) fewer transient pressure spikes in the system due to
industrial customers shutting down. This utility noted that
transient pressure spikes were the lowest when SDPs were the
most stringent. This experience reveals that pandemic-induced
demand changes might have unexpected positive consequences
on the water system’s operations (i.e., the system behaves
differently than expected).
3.2.2. Water Quality and Maintenance. The water age in
the distribution system is inherently connected to changes in
demand, leading to possible water quality challenges when
demand declines. Notably, 64% of utilities in our analysis did
not see a change in disinfectant residuals throughout the
distribution system (see Figure 1 for information about the
Figure 2. Utilities’response to the COVID-19 pandemic (not inclusive of all codes; see the Supporting Information for the full frequency table).
ACS ES&T Water pubs.acs.org/estwater Article
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00229
ACS EST Water XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
H
utilities that did experience a change in residuals or did not
mention or know if they did). Despite demand changes, most
utilities did not observe negative water quality consequences
and were able to continue to provide water quality at
prepandemic levels, revealing a sign of resilience within water
systems. Of the utilities that did see changes to disinfectant
residuals, only three (one a university campus) mentioned
lower-than-usual residuals. Two of the three interviewees that
noted low residuals conducted sampling prior to flushing in
buildings, a fact that reinforces the importance of flushing
premise plumbing during pandemics. Most utilities that
noticed low residuals increased system flushing in problematic
areas, while only one utility noted that they preemptively
increased flushing due to demand changes (e.g., in commercial
areas that saw a decrease in water demand). On the contrary,
18% of utilities noted that they postponed or stopped flushing
due to staffing constraints (see Figure 2 for information about
the utilities that did not change protocols or did not mention
or know if the response was taken). COVID-related workforce
challenges (i.e., limited staff) directly impacted utilities’ability
to perform system flushing as they had to prioritize critical
work. Staffing shortages also caused utilities to adjust their
maintenance strategies. Nearly one-third (32%) of utilities
deferred noncritical maintenance such as replacing meters at
customers’homes, preventative maintenance, or fixing small
leaks, while all other utilities were unsure or did not mention
deferring maintenance. Similar to the future implications of
delaying capital projects, delayed maintenance could cause
future infrastructure issues.
3.3. Finances. The COVID-19 pandemic changed utilities’
financial capacities and spending. Forty-three percent of
utilities interviewed experienced revenue decreases. Of these,
six experienced a decrease in overall demand and six said that
demand had not noticeably changed. Many state and local
governments implemented regulations ensuring access to water
services despite users’ability to pay (e.g., no water shutoffs
during the pandemic and loan forgiveness), contributing to
revenue decreases. Of utilities in our sample, 46% (13 utilities)
mentioned an increase in late payments or delinquent accounts
and seven of these explicitly mentioned a revenue decrease
(see Figure 1 for a detailed breakdown of information about
delinquent accounts). In turn, we can infer that both late
payments and demand decreases contributed to revenue loss.
The change in revenue varied among utilities, with some
utilities seeing dramatic decreases. For instance, one
interviewee noted that their utility’s revenue was down 70%
and that, despite cost reductions, it was a major concern due to
fixed costs. Another interviewee noted that their revenue
numbers were “horrible”. This unexpected revenue decrease
led to management and operational challenges. For instance,
many of the delays in capital projects (see section 3.1.4) and
the reduction in maintenance (see section 3.2.2) were due to
this decrease in financial capacity. Additionally, three utilities
mentioned that they were unable to or discouraged from
increasing water rates as planned, leading to long-term
challenges after the pandemic. As one interviewee stated, “A
couple of big challenges that we’re facing is that we are in the
process of developing our budget for the next biennium. And
with that in mind, and pressure from board and council to look
into zero rate adjustments ... we still feel the inflationary costs,
too. So that’s something to consider if we do have zero rate
adjustments, it might take us, say six yearsthat’s what we’re
modelingto catch back up. And so in the long run, it’s
probably not to the benefit of the utility, or our customers.”
In response to COVID-19, utilities accrued new expenses
associated with SDPs. For example, one utility rented extra
vehicles to maintain personnel safety and another lost money
while sequestering employees. Many utilities accrued expenses
when they expanded their customer assistance programs due to
the pandemic (e.g., expanding the threshold to be eligible for
programs). One utility even created an assistance program for
small businesses. In summary, many utilities were experiencing
decreased revenue and increased operational expenses due to
the pandemic. Although 25% of utilities reported that they
planned to apply for federal funding, respondents generally did
not know of a clear opportunity for funding to cope with
pandemic-induced financial challenges, revealing a gap in state
and federal legislation (77% of utilities did not know about or
mention federal funding).
3.4. Community-Related. The pandemic also altered the
way in which utilities communicate and interact with residents.
For instance, many utilities closed in-person customer service
or changed hours of operation. One utility was able to provide
drive-through customer service for customers to pay their bills.
SDPs came with community-related challenges such as
increased response time and communication challenges.
Two-thirds of utilities adapted their outreach strategies, such
as creating outreach materials for water safety and flushing
protocols. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic forced water
utilities to rely on technology for public communication and
outreach (e.g., virtual meetings and increased use of social
media). One utility said that these technological strategies
actually improved their communication with the public: “Our
communication with the public had changed, really for the
better though. It increased the amount of communication and
the methods that we used. We used to just put up signs, metal
signs, in the neighborhoods, and have a little blurb on our
website, but we started doing almost a reverse 911 type callout
to customers. And a lot more social media presence with
regard to all that, just so they know what’s going on and why
we are doing it, so they’re not concerned.”
After the COVID-19 pandemic, utilities expressed that they
would likely continue new outreach strategies to improve their
customers’experiences. It is important to note that customer
service and communication shifting online led to possible
equity issues for customers without access to the Internet. For
instance, customers might face barriers to pay their bill or fail
to receive communications from the utility when the main
medium is online (e.g., email and social media). If utilities
decide to make this technological shift permanent, they need
to come up with provisions to ensure equity and accessibility
of information.
Despite communication efforts, five utilities (18%) did see
an increase in the number of customer complaints or calls (see
Figure 1 for a breakdown of utilities’changes in customer
calls). These calls were for various reasons (e.g., aesthetic
complaints and questions about water safety). Three of these
utilities speculated that the increase in the number of
complaints was due to people being at home more and, in
turn, being more sensitive to water aesthetics or concerned
about their tap water. On the contrary, four utilities reported a
decrease in the number of customer calls, likely due to the
policy of no water shutoffs (i.e., customers were less concerned
about their bills).
ACS ES&T Water pubs.acs.org/estwater Article
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00229
ACS EST Water XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
I
3.5. Regulatory Requirements and Testing. Water
utilities must adhere to water quality standards that are in place
to ensure public safety. Although the minimum standards are
specified by the federal Primary Drinking Water Regulations,
31
states may set and enforce more stringent standards. To show
compliance, water utilities must perform regular water quality
testing at the treatment plant and in the distribution system.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, it became more of a
challenge to perform these required tests (e.g., for disinfectants
and disinfection byproducts, lead and copper, and coliforms).
Specifically, 29% of utilities mentioned that they struggled to
perform testing due to issues such as lack of staff, supply chain
challenges, and inability to sample at customers’homes (see
Figure 1 for information about the utilities that did not
experience this challenge or did not mention or know if they
did). In response to this challenge, utilities changed the
location of sample sites or added backup sites in case of
complications. One utility continued to sample in customers’
homes but, to maintain social distancing, allowed the residents
to collect the samples. Notably, two utilities reduced
nonregulatory testing, such as water quality monitoring in
reservoirs or groundwater sources.
4. STUDY IMPLICATIONS
This section outlines the implications for policy (i.e.,
suggestions to improve water utilities’resilience to future
pandemics) and practice (i.e., utility planning recommenda-
tions). Similar to findings about natural disasters,
32
we
discovered that the COVID-19 pandemic amplified existing
challenges. When interviewees discussed challenges faced
during the pandemic, they often pointed to the fact that
these issues existed before the pandemic. For instance, one
interviewee said, “I really think it’s just the concerns that we
[utility] are already dealing with are sort of magnified by the
coronavirus.”Some of these challenges were utility-specific,
while other challenges were consistent between utilities,
emerging as prevalent, systematic water infrastructure issues
in the United States. For instance, aging infrastructure and a
lack of qualified staffwere widely known challenges before the
pandemic.
29,33
Also, operators were identified as points of
vulnerability as respondents mentioned that operational issues
would arise with even one operator being unable to work.
These challenges were amplified during the COVID-19
pandemic, and the repercussions of not addressing these
challenges could also be intensified or occur earlier. For
instance, delaying capital projects during the pandemic will
only exacerbate the issue of aging infrastructure. Delays
compounded with financial issues at utilities (e.g., revenue
decrease and delayed rate increases) will make it challenging
for utilities to remain on the same capital project schedule. In
turn, the water system as a whole will be less resilient to future
disasters. In general, this finding further supports the urgent
need for federal and state policy to address gaps in
infrastructure funding. With regard to consequences from
this pandemic, it would be beneficial to provide funding for
operational expenses and revenue deficits that occurred. This
would enable utilities to continue funding capital projects and
infrastructure upgrades as the COVID-19 pandemic continues
and for future pandemics. In addition, we believe this funding
could be used to provide more equitable water sector services
by ensuring that needed capital projects are carried out in
underserved areas (we recommend including equity metrics in
project decision making as discussed by Jones and
Armanios
34
). Such funding could also enable utilities to extend
affordability programs during the pandemic-induced economic
crisis.
From a planning perspective, our results indicate that there
is a widespread need to integrate pandemic planning into the
existing long-term planning literature. From these short-term
demand changes occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic,
we can learn how to better manage long-term population
dynamics due to population decline (e.g., revenue decrease and
underutilized infrastructure
15,19,20
) or gentrification (e.g., the
demand patterns change due to new sociodemographics). In
turn, the results show that pandemic planning should be
integrated into existing population planning at water utilities.
In addition, future studies should focus on incorporating
pandemic planning into disaster-specific research to capture
multiple hazards.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Social distancing policies enacted due to the COVID-19
pandemic led to a sudden spatial and temporal shift in drinking
water demand. The utilities we interviewed were able to meet
this immense challenge and protect water quality and
operations. Still, despite this resounding success and although
utilities plan regularly for more typical population changes,
most had no advance plans that would have better enabled
them to respond to this scale of modification in operations. In
addition, during the utilities’response, they were tasked with
implementing SDPs within their workforce and were impacted
by other repercussions of the pandemic (e.g., supply chain and
financial concerns). In the study presented here, we identified
how utilities were challenged during SDPs and responded to
ensure the continuous provision of drinking water. We
performed 30 semistructured interviews and focus groups
with more than 50 utility employees. The data set included
input from 28 utilities and was qualitatively coded on the basis
of emergent themes. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, there
was little research focused on water utilities’operation during
pandemics. Our study contributes to this gap in the literature
and provides practical planning recommendations to utilities.
Findings also highlight the need for funding and research to
ensure resilient water infrastructure systems that are capable of
responding to unexpected stresses, such as pandemics, without
sacrificing sustainability and public health.
■ASSOCIATED CONTENT
*
sıSupporting Information
The Supporting Information is available free of charge at
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00229.
Full frequency tables of challenges faced by utilities and
utilities’responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, which
are extended versions of Tables 3 and 4(PDF)
■AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
Kasey M. Faust −Civil, Architectural and Environmental
Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
78751, United States; orcid.org/0000-0001-7986-4757;
Email: faustk@utexas.edu
ACS ES&T Water pubs.acs.org/estwater Article
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00229
ACS EST Water XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
J
Authors
Lauryn A. Spearing −Civil, Architectural and Environmental
Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
78751, United States
Nathalie Thelemaque −Civil and Environmental Engineering,
The University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195,
United States
Jessica A. Kaminsky −Civil and Environmental Engineering,
The University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195,
United States; orcid.org/0000-0002-1340-7913
Lynn E. Katz −Civil, Architectural and Environmental
Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
78751, United States
Kerry A. Kinney −Civil, Architectural and Environmental
Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
78751, United States
Mary Jo Kirisits −Civil, Architectural and Environmental
Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
78751, United States
Lina Sela −Civil, Architectural and Environmental
Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
78751, United States; orcid.org/0000-0002-5834-8451
Complete contact information is available at:
https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00229
Author Contributions
Conceptualization and design: L.A.S., J.A.K., and K.F. Data
collection: J.A.K., K.F., and L.A.S. Data coding and analysis:
L.A.S. and N.T. Coding validation: L.A.S., N.T., J.A.K., and
K.F. Writing of the original draft: L.A.S. Review and editing: all
authors. Supervision: K.F.
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This material is based upon work supported by the National
Science Foundation under Grant 2032434/2032429 and the
National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship
Program under Grant DGE-1610403.
■REFERENCES
(1) American Water Works Association. COVID-19 Utility and
Water Sector Organization Impact Survey (April 17−22, 2020). 2020.
(2) National Research Council. Improving the Nation’s Water
Security: Opportunities for Research; National Academies Press:
Washington, DC, 2007.
(3) The Preparedness Emergency Response and Recovery Critical
Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC) Working
Group. All-Hazard Consequence Management Planning for the
Water Sector. 2009.
(4) Van Atta, P.; Newsad, R. Water System Preparedness and Best
Practices for Pandemic Influenza. J. - Am. Water Works Assoc. 2009,
101 (1), 40−53.
(5) Neal, M. J. COVID-19 and Water Resources Management:
Reframing Our Priorities as a Water Sector. Water Int. 2020,45, 435.
(6) Sowby, R. B. Emergency Preparedness after COVID-19: A
Review of Policy Statements in the U.S. Water Sector. Util. Policy
2020,64 (April), 101058.
(7) Poch, M.; Garrido-Baserba, M.; Corominas, L.; Perelló-
Moragues, A.; Monclús, H.; Cermerón-Romero, M.; Melitas, N.;
Jiang, S. C.; Rosso, D. When the Fourth Water and Digital Revolution
Encountered COVID-19. Sci. Total Environ. 2020,744, 140980.
(8) Sivakumar, B. COVID-19 and Water. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk
Assess. 2020,6,10−13.
(9) Cotterill, S.; Bunney, S.; Lawson, E.; Chisholm, A.; Farmani, R.;
Melville-Shreeve, P. COVID-19 and the Water Sector: Understanding
Impact, Preparedness and Resilience in the UK through a Sector-wide
Survey. Water Environ. J. 2020,34, 715.
(10) Bivins, A.; North, D.; Ahmad, A.; Ahmed, W.; Alm, E.; Been,
F.; Bhattacharya, P.; Bijlsma, L.; Boehm, A. B.; Brown, J.; Buttiglieri,
G.; Calabro, V.; Carducci, A.; Castiglioni, S.; Cetecioglu Gurol, Z.;
Chakraborty, S.; Costa, F.; Curcio, S.; De Los Reyes, F. L.; Delgado
Vela, J.; Farkas, K.; Fernandez-Casi, X.; Gerba, C.; Gerrity, D.;
Girones, R.; Gonzalez, R.; Haramoto, E.; Harris, A.; Holden, P. A.;
Islam, M. T.; Jones, D. L.; Kasprzyk-Hordern, B.; Kitajima, M.;
Kotlarz, N.; Kumar, M.; Kuroda, K.; La Rosa, G.; Malpei, F.; Mautus,
M.; McLellan, S. L.; Medema, G.; Meschke, J. S.; Mueller, J.; Newton,
R. J.; Nilsson, D.; Noble, R. T.; Van Nuijs, A.; Peccia, J.; Perkins, T.
A.; Pickering, A. J.; Rose, J.; Sanchez, G.; Smith, A.; Stadler, L.;
Stauber, C.; Thomas, K.; Van Der Voorn, T.; Wigginton, K.; Zhu, K.;
Bibby, K. Wastewater-Based Epidemiology: Global Collaborative to
Maximize Contributions in the Fight against COVID-19. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 2020,54 (13), 7754−7757.
(11) Usman, M.; Farooq, M.; Hanna, K. Existence of SARS-CoV-2
in Wastewater: Implications for Its Environmental Transmission in
Developing Communities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020,54 (13), 7758−
7759.
(12) Garrido-Baserba, M.; Corominas, L.; Corté
s, U.; Rosso, D.;
Poch, M. The Fourth-Revolution in the Water Sector Encounters the
Digital Revolution. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020,54 (8), 4698−4705.
(13) Roidt, M.; Chini, C. M.; Stillwell, A. S.; Cominola, A.
Unlocking the Impacts of COVID-19 Lockdowns: Changes in
Thermal Electricity Generation Water Footprint and Virtual Water
Trade in Europe. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2020,7, 683.
(14) Balacco, G.; Totaro, V.; Iacobellis, V.; Manni, A.; Spagnoletta,
M.; Piccinni, A. F. Influence of COVID-19 Spread on Water Drinking
Demand: The Case of Puglia Region (Southern Italy). Sustainability
2020,12 (15), 5919.
(15) Faust, K. M.; Abraham, D. M.; McElmurry, S. P. Water and
Wastewater Infrastructure Management in Shrinking Cities. Public
Work. Manag. Policy 2016,21 (2), 128−156.
(16) Varis, O.; Biswas, A. K.; Tortajada, C.; Lundqvist, J. Megacities
and Water Management. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2006,22 (2), 377−
394.
(17) Faure, J. C.; Faust, K. M. Socioeconomic Characteristics versus
Density Changes: The Operational Effects of Population Dynamics
on Water Systems. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure 2020,1.
(18) Kaminsky, J.; Faust, K. M. Transitioning from a Human Right
to an Infrastructure Service: Water, Wastewater, and Displaced
Persons in Germany. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017,51 (21), 12081−
12088.
(19) Faust, K. M.; Abraham, D. M. Evaluating the Feasibility of
Decommissioning Residential Water Infrastructure in Cities Facing
Urban Decline. In ASCE Construction Research Congress, Atlanta, GA,
2014; pp 1229−1238.
(20) Faust, K. M.; Abraham, D. M.; DeLaurentis, D. Coupled
Human and Water Infrastructure Systems Sector Interdependencies:
Framework Evaluating the Impact of Cities Experiencing Urban
Decline. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 2017,
143 (8), 04017043.
(21) Zhuang, J.; Sela, L. Impact of Emerging Water Savings
Scenarios on Performance of Urban Water Networks. Journal of Water
Resources Planning and Management 2020,146 (1), 04019063.
(22) United Nations. Sustainable Development Goal 9. https://
www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/infrastructure-industrialization
(accessed 2020-08-19).
(23) American Water Works Association. COVID-19 Water Sector
Impact Survey (March 10−16, 2020). 2020.
(24) Saldaña, J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 2nd
ed.; Sage Publications: London, 2013.
(25) Mansoor, S. President Trump Extends Federal Social
Distancing Guidelines Until End of April. TIME. March 29, 2020.
ACS ES&T Water pubs.acs.org/estwater Article
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00229
ACS EST Water XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
K
(26) Strauss, A.; Corbin, L. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques
and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed.; Sage
Publications: London, 1998.
(27) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006 Community Water
System Survey; 2006; Vol. I.
(28) De Vries, H.; Elliott, M. N.; Kanouse, E. D.; Teleki, S. S. Using
Pooled Kappa to Summarize Interrater Agreement across Many
Items. Field methods 2008,20 (3), 272−282.
(29) Kane, J.; Tomer, A. Renewing the Water Workforce: Improving
Water Infrastructure and Creating a Pipeline to Opportunity; The
Brookings Institution, 2018.
(30) Poleacovschi, C.; Javernick-Will, A.; Tong, T. The Link
between Knowledge Sharing Connections and Employee Time
Savings: A Social Network Analysis. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2017,35
(8−9), 455−467.
(31) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations; 2009.
(32) Spearing, L. A.; Faust, K. M. Cascading System Impacts of the
2018 Camp Fire in California: The Interdependent Provision of
Infrastructure Services to Displaced Populations. International Journal
of Disaster Risk Reduction 2020,50, 101822.
(33) American Water Works Association. State of the Water
Industry-Executive Summary. 2020.
(34) Jones, S. H.; Armanios, D. E. Methodological Framework and
Feasibility Study to Assess Social Equity Impacts of the Built
Environment. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
2020,146 (11), 05020016.
ACS ES&T Water pubs.acs.org/estwater Article
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00229
ACS EST Water XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
L
