By: Lauren Patterson
December 2021
The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions’ Water Policy Program has developed a water affordability dashboard that allows users to assess affordability across different water utilities using flexible, self-selected parameters.
Everyone needs water, but many Americans are struggling to pay the rising costs of water services. The COVID-19 pandemic is amplifying existing water affordability and equity challenges throughout the US. As widespread unemployment and shutdowns disrupted Americans’ lives water affordability became an urgent public health issue and the focus of many national policy discussions.
In California, 1 in 8 households had water debt as of January 2021. 1 That’s at least 1.6 million households across the state of California. Utilities generate the revenue they need to pay for operations, maintenance, and infrastructure from their customers – including households. When households cannot pay their bills, the utility experiences financial distress as well. In California, water systems are absorbing an estimated $1 billion of unpaid household bills. 2 This same story is playing out for water systems across the nation, highlighting the integral link between the financial health of a utility and the financial health of their customers ( Figure 1).Household affordability is the ability for a household to pay for the basic water services needed for drinking, cooking, cleaning, and sanitation without undue hardship. The subjective terms used in this definition (shown in bold) make it difficult to determine when water is unaffordable.
3. Which household is something utilities wrestle with when setting rates. Many local or state regulations require a utility to set the same rates for all customers in a class (e.g. residential customers) to be fair. Historically, the Environmental Protection Agency used the median household income (50th percentile) as a proxy because it was an easy metric to estimate in the 1990s. In other words, how much of the median household’s income is spent on water services using the average utility bill. In recent years, other slices of the community, specifically minimum wage earners and low-income (20th percentile) households, have been proposed as a better representative for affordability. For each of these slices of the community, the percent of income going to pay for the exact same water bill will vary dramatically. For example, the minimum wage earner might spend 10% of their income, the low-income household might spend 6% of their income, and the median household might spend 2% of their income to pay for the same water bill. The cost of water might be fair but the financial impact on households is not equitable.
There are three types of data required to calculate household affordability (Figure 3):
Figure 3. The data needed to calculate affordability metrics in an open, repeatable way.
Together these three types of data answer the question: how affordable are water services given the costs and the demographic makeup of the community that lives in my utility’s service area?Several water affordability metrics have been developed that calculate the amount of time a household needs to work to pay for water services each month. Essentially, for the same water bill, what is the burden experienced by different members of the community?
In a month, a day of labor is equivalent to 4.6% of the income earned that month, which allows these three slices of the community to be explored together using days of labor. In fact, if you have the right data, many affordability metrics could be calculated and viewed together in an automated, repeatable fashion.
The Nicholas Institute’s Water Policy Program developed a new metric that looks at how many households within the community spend a similar amount of their income on water services. This metric is called the Income Dedicated to Water Services metric (Figure 4). Essentially, it takes the costs of water in a year and back calculates the amount of income a household would need for those costs to account for 1%, 2%, 3%, etc. of the household’s income. Then, using the census data, you can estimate the percent of households that earn less than that income. The result is that rather than saying low-income households spend 4% of their income on water services, you can say that 20% of households are spending more than 4% of their income on water services. This metric accounts for not only the hardship (percent income) but also the prevalence of hardship (percent of households).
Figure 4. Calculating the Income Dedicated to Water Services metric.
The Water Policy Program team designed the dashboard to maximize flexibility when exploring affordability. The dashboard does this in three ways. First, the user can select the volume of water that best matches what they decide accounts for basic needs (between 0 and 16,000 gallons a month). Second, the dashboard provides information about (a) who lives in the utility, (b) the costs of service, (c) multiple affordability metrics for all utilities in the database, and (d) how affordability changes with water usage. This approach provides more transparency and allows users to compare their utility with others nearby. Remember, the utility could charge the exact same amount for water but have very different affordability metrics depending on the community being served. Third, the dashboard shows the full spectrum of affordability results and provides markers showing how many days of labor are needed to pay for services. This allows the user to determine when an undue hardship is reached.
The Water Policy Program team went through several iterations of dashboard designs and engaged in focused discussions with a variety of audiences. The team found that different audiences prioritized different components of the dashboard. Utilities enjoyed the “who lives in my utility” tab with clear graphics showing information about who lives in the utility in terms of numbers, income, age, race, ethnicity, and unemployment. Policy centers prioritized the detailed block group information and were interested in the diversity (or lack of diversity) of incomes within water service boundaries. Academics and consultants enjoyed the diversity of metrics provided and detailed rates data.
As of this blog post, the Water Policy Program has assessed the affordability of 2,349 utilities across 7 states. Here, the results are shown using 4,000 gallons of water a month.
The Water Policy Program’s assessment includes a metric that does not look at household affordability but assesses the financial health of the community being serviced. This metric is the Poverty Prevalence Indicator, which is the percent of the community living below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level. The team found that the median utility serves a community where 30% of households are below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (Figure 5). Remember that the financial health of the utility (and its capacity to help its customers afford their bills) is tied to the financial health of the community.
Figure 5. The percent of the community that is below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level.Not surprisingly, the assessment showed that affordability metrics for different slices of the community showed different burden levels (Figure 6). Minimum wage earners were the most sensitive to water rates and affordability challenges. In the median utility, minimum wage earners spent 1-2 days of labor each month to pay for water services. In contrast, low-income earners tended to spend between half a day and a little over a day each month and median income earners usually spent less than a half-day of labor to pay for services.
Figure 6. Comparing the burden level for different slices of the community at 4,000 gallons of water.
Figure 7. Income Dedicated to Water Services by state. Each gray line represents an individual utility. The dashed vertical line represents a day of labor (~4.6% of monthly income).
The Income Dedicated to Water Services metric indicated that 12% of households in the median utility spent 5% of their income (slightly more than a day of labor) paying for water services each month (Figure 7). The difference between states ranged from 7% in New Jersey to 16% in North Carolina. New Jersey had the highest median annual income of these states in 2019 ($87,726) while North Carolina ($61,159) and New Mexico ($53,113) had much lower median incomes. The median cost of water services in North Carolina ($81) was $17 higher than New Mexico ($64) at 4,000 gallons a month; highlighting that it is not just the cost of water but the financial health of the community that determines affordability.
Service area boundaries, rates, and population all change over time. The dashboard captures a snapshot of who was living in service areas of the included utilities and the costs of water services between 2019 and 2021. The Internet of Water project is developing tools that can help expand and update the data in the dashboard.
A BOundary Update Tool for Utility Services (ABOUT-US) will provide an open-source online tool for utilities to create and update their service areas using a similar interface to Google Maps. Utilities who use the tool will not need any additional software to create or update digital service area boundaries. If states provide ABOUT-US to their utilities as a service, they can establish version control and create a process for quality control of boundaries.
The Internet of Water is also developing a rates survey to make it easier to standardize and update rates data. The rates survey data can be integrated into the dashboard. Additionally, the rates data will be linked to water utility information in Geoconnex. This will make it easy for users to enter a volume of water for a utility and see the estimated monthly bill for water services.
1 Botts. 2021. `The most basic form of PPE`: 1.6 million households face water shutoffs.
2 Ibid.
3 Figure from Aspen Roundtable Briefing Document (not for distribution).
4 Doyle, M.W. et al. 2020. Growing options for shrinking cities. JAWWA 112 (12): 56-66.
Header Photo: Linus Nylund, Unsplash
Footer Photo: Johnny Mcclung, Unsplash
Graphics: Lilli Watson