What Is The Future Of Source Water Protection?
By Kevin Westerling,
@KevinOnWater
Water utility managers and municipal leaders have long struggled amid the convergence of several threats to public water supplies. Climate change, aging infrastructure, rapid population growth, and the ever-growing number of emerging contaminants have moved source water protection from a peripheral environmental concern to a core focus. During a recent Water Online Live event, “Safeguarding the Source: Navigating Risks and Future-Proofing Water Systems,” I sat with a panel of industry experts to examine the transition from reactive crisis management to a proactive, adaptive resilience framework.
Prioritizing The Watershed
The panelists agreed that the traditional “source-to-tap” philosophy is being fundamentally redefined in the face of complex contaminants and environmental stressors. Dr. Kenan Ozekin, chief research officer at the Water Research Foundation (WRF), noted a significant shift in industry attention. He explained that two decades ago, fewer than 40% of utilities were actively engaged in source water protection; today, that number has climbed to 57%, with source water protection recently ranking as the top priority in the AWWA State of the Water Industry report. This elevation in status is driven by the realization that, as Ozekin stated, “It is always less expensive and more effective to manage a contaminant in watershed than drinking water treatment plant.”
Climate Change And The Recovery Horizon
Discussion moved to climate change’s role as a risk multiplier, impacting both the availability and the chemical composition of source water. Extreme events, particularly wildfires, present long-term operational hurdles. While the immediate aftermath of a fire is characterized by high turbidity and ash, the chemical impacts persist long after the water appears to have cleared. “We are learning from our research that it takes more than 10 years to go back to the background conditions before the fires," Ozekin said. For utility managers, this underscores the need for sustained baseline monitoring. Without high-quality baseline data to establish normal conditions, it is impossible to accurately assess the impact of extreme events or the efficacy of recovery efforts.
The panel emphasized that strong data foundations, and robust monitoring programs are the first step in de-risking a utility’s operations.
PFAS: From Removal To Destruction
Perhaps the most disruptive challenge the sector is currently facing is the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Ozekin noted that these contaminants stand out due to their extreme persistence, mobility, and the regulatory requirement to measure them in parts per trillion. He also explained that while conventional technologies such as granular activated carbon (GAC), ion exchange (IX), and membrane filtration are effective at removing PFAS from drinking water, they ultimately concentrate the chemicals into a secondary waste stream that must be dealt with later.
As such, the industry must focus on destructive technologies that can break the carbon-fluorine bond, the challenge often limited by budget constraints. The goal for future-proofed utilities, Ozekin insisted, is to identify where in the water cycle — whether at the source, the treatment plant, or the wastewater effluent — they can achieve the most effective “bang for the buck” in PFAS destruction.
Algal Blooms And The Microplastics Frontier
Beyond PFAS, the panelists also brought up the increasing frequency of harmful algal blooms (HABs). Warming waters are triggering these blooms earlier in the season, introducing cyanotoxins and taste-and-odor compounds like MIB and geosmin into treatment systems. Alex Shannon, senior VP at WSP in the U.S., noted that some actions, such as the use of orthophosphate for corrosion control, can actually exacerbate algal blooms. Ultimately, panelists said the issue of algal blooms requires operational agility, such as adjusting coagulant doses or powdered activated carbon (PAC) applications to manage these spikes in real time.
At the same time, microplastics have emerged as a significant “known unknown.” While initial research indicates that conventional treatment processes can remove the majority of microplastics, the long-term health effects remain unconfirmed, and measurement techniques are not yet standardized. Still, Ozekin mentioned that proactive utilities are already establishing monitoring protocols to stay ahead of potential regulations.
Adaptive Scenario Planning
One of the major barriers to addressing these and other concerns is the risk of sunk costs, i.e., investing in infrastructure that becomes obsolete as regulations or conditions change. Shannon argued that water utilities must shift toward adaptive scenario planning. This framework moves away from linear, fixed engineering solutions in favor of a branching decision-making model.
Specifically, he recommended using modular infrastructure. By designing plants that allow for additional treatment processes to be "tacked on" in the future, he insisted, utilities can manage current needs without overcommitting capital to technologies that may not meet future standards. Shannon also stressed the importance of involving the people who actually run the systems in this planning. “If we want to design something and change our design standards, how will that show up in operations?” he asked.
Avoiding Political Ping-Pong
For many utilities, long-term resilience is hampered by the mismatch between infrastructure lifespans and political budget cycles, according to Shannon. Most utilities operate on two-year budget cycles, while the infrastructure they manage is meant to last 50 years or more. This often leads to what he called “political ping-ponging,” where new elected officials question previous investments or pivot away from long-term projects.
To overcome this, he advised utilities to “become more nimble and change our design philosophy to be more flexible.” He also suggested giving elected officials clear pathways that show how current investments reduce future risks.
The Watershed As A Collective Asset
The conversation moved to effective source water protection programs. “Water issues are so localized or regional,” said Karen Frost, executive director of The Water Council. She pointed to the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) as a prime example of how region-specific strategies can successfully address these complex challenges. MMSD utilizes a “working soils” program, partnering with upstream farmers to manage runoff and re-naturalizing concrete channels to mitigate flood risks.
On the industrial side, she highlighted The Water Council’s efforts to promote “collective water action.” Frost explained that this involves multiple industrial players in the same watershed identifying shared pain points (e.g., nutrient levels or PFAS concentrations) and mapping solutions together. This collective approach can accelerate the adoption of new technologies and distribute the financial burden of innovation.
Breaking Down Silos In Data And Expertise
Another major hurdle covered by the panel was the decentralized nature of technology adoption. Many companies find themselves in what Frost called a “death by piloting” scenario. In other words, without a centralized database to share results, water utilities must repeatedly validate the same performance and efficiency across different clients.
Frost further argued for a more interconnected network of data sharing across states and sites. She stated, “Having some ways that those data sets can be shared for mutual benefit outside of a single test situation would certainly benefit the industry.” By de-risking new technologies through shared proof points, she added, the entire sector can adopt solutions for PFAS and microplastics more rapidly.
This challenge extends beyond technology validation to the preservation of institutional knowledge. As experienced professionals retire, utilities risk losing critical operational insight. Frost noted that digital tools and AI are increasingly being deployed to capture and institutionalize this expertise, enabling newer staff to benefit from accumulated knowledge. Advanced AI platforms can even learn the nuances of specific treatment systems, providing ongoing guidance and decision support.
The Source-To-Flush Philosophy
The panel concluded that the industry must move toward an integrated water lifecycle management strategy. This involves recognizing that the same molecule of water travels through rain, snow, streams, groundwater, and waste streams. Risk management must happen at multiple points in this cycle, Shannon advised, to avoid “playing whack-a-mole” with contaminants.
For instance, solving a corrosion problem in the drinking water system by adding orthophosphate can unintentionally contribute to nutrient problems and algal blooms in the wastewater stream. An integrated approach ensures that a solution in one bucket of water management does not create a crisis in another.
To hear the full panel discussion and audience Q&A, watch the full webinar on demand here.
About the Panelists
Karen Frost was named executive director of The Water Council in June 2025. Previously she served as vice president of economic development and innovation. In her 10 years with The Water Council, she has led the organization’s economic development efforts, global suite of innovation programming and international efforts that serve partners and companies in Europe and beyond. She is an experienced connector and strong relationship builder and collaborator with the water tech and startup community, global partners, and funders.
Alex Shannon is senior vice president and Water Business Line Leader for WSP in the U.S.’ 31-state West Region, headquartered in Seattle, WA. In this leadership role, Alex oversees strategic planning, client engagement, and delivery of innovative water solutions across a diverse portfolio of projects. With extensive experience in water infrastructure and environmental services, Alex drives initiatives that address critical challenges such as climate resilience, adaptive planning, and sustainable resource management. Alex is passionate about advancing future-ready strategies for utilities and communities, ensuring they can adapt to evolving regulatory and environmental demands. Under Alex’s guidance, WSP’s water business emphasizes collaboration, technical excellence, and long-term sustainability, positioning the firm as a trusted partner in shaping resilient water systems.
Dr. Kenan Ozekin is chief research officer, The Water Research Foundation. In his leadership role at The Water Research Foundation (WRF), Dr. Ozekin oversees research planning, program development, and cross-functional collaboration to ensure that WRF’s research portfolio addresses the most pressing and emerging challenges facing water utilities. He works closely with utility leaders, researchers, consultants, and regulators to advance impactful, timely, and subscriber-driven research. Dr. Ozekin has over 25 years of experience and a strong background in project management, development of competitive research proposals, stakeholder collaboration and partnership building, and strategic research planning and implementation. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Chemical Engineering from Istanbul Technical University, a master’s degree in Chemical Engineering, and a PhD in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University of Colorado at Boulder.