Building Back Better?

By Kevin Westerling,
@KevinOnWater

Every four years, America gets a fresh reminder of where we stand as a nation, for better or worse. What have we reaped this time around?

We’re doing better at the top, but that’s not saying much. After all, we only went from a C- to a C.

I’m talking, of course, about the Report Card for America’s Infrastructure from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), which assessed our overall infrastructure — encompassing 18 categories — and determined just slight improvement from 2021 to 2025.

Many categories in ASCE’s report relate to the water industry, such as dams (graded D+ in 2025), inland waters (C-), levees (D+), and ports (B), but I’d like to focus on three vitally important categories for Water Online and Water Innovations readers: drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater.

For this crucial trifecta, we remain unchanged from four years ago. And like that other pulse check of our nation, keeping the status quo can be viewed positively or negatively — the devil is in the details.

Here’s the breakdown:

• Drinking Water: Maintained a grade of C-. This indicates that while there’s no significant deterioration, the infrastructure shows general signs of aging and requires attention. There are still notable deficiencies that increase vulnerability. Key concerns include the presence of over 9 million lead service lines, significant water loss (equivalent to more than 50 million Olympicsized swimming pools annually), and an estimated $625 billion needed over the next 20 years to bring the systems to a state of good repair. Despite the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) allocating funds, earmarks have reduced the capitalization grants available to states.
• Wastewater: Remained at a grade of D+. This signifies that the infrastructure is in fair to poor condition and, in some instances, approaching the end of its service life. Failures are becoming more common. Although the number of sanitary sewer overflows has decreased, the renewal and replacement rate for large capital projects has declined. There’s a significant annual funding gap of $99 billion for wastewater and stormwater, with only about 30% of the needs currently met.
• Stormwater: Continued with a grade of D. This is one of the lowest grades, indicating a system largely in poor condition and at risk of failure. The length of impaired rivers and streams has increased significantly, partly due to the strain on stormwater systems from aging infrastructure and increasing rainfall intensities linked to climate change. While more utilities are developing maintenance plans, revenue from increasing stormwater fees isn’t keeping pace with the growing costs.

Here’s what this stagnation implies:

• Continued Underinvestment: The consistent grades suggest that, while the IIJA has begun to inject much-needed funds, the level of investment may still be insufficient to significantly move the needle on the deep-seated issues within these sectors. The funding gaps reported in both years remain substantial.
• Aging Infrastructure Persists: The grades reflect the ongoing reality of aging pipes, treatment plants, and other crucial components that are reaching or exceeding their design lives. The lack of improvement indicates that the pace of repair and replacement is not yet adequate to improve the overall condition. For drinking water, the millions of lead service lines continue to be a major concern.
• Missed Opportunities for Improvement: While other infrastructure sectors saw grade improvements, the water sectors did not. This suggests that the specific challenges and funding priorities within drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater may require more targeted and potentially increased attention and investment.

The consistent C-, D+, and D grades for drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater, respectively, serve as a stark reminder that sustained and potentially increased investment, coupled with strategic planning and innovative solutions, are crucial to sustaining our nation’s water infrastructure — and improving these middling to poor ASCE grades.

As we do in these cycles, we will be looking back in four years to see how we did. Fingers crossed.