Anniversary
MARTIN J O N ES , WILL WILLIAMS, AND JE FF ST ILLM AN
The evolution of asset
management in the water
industry
P
140
Led by utilities in the United Kingdom, Australia,
and New Zealand, utility asset management has
developed into a management concept; this article
reviews how asset management has evolved in the
US water industry and what the future holds.
eople have managed assets for many thousands of years. But utilities have used a formal management approach to realize value from their assets only for the past few
decades. The complex concept of managing physical assets has grown out of constraints
(particularly on financial resources) and the need to optimize costs, risks, and performance over the life cycle of a portfolio of assets. This article examines how asset
management developed into a management concept led by utilities in the United
Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, and how it has evolved in the water industry
in the United States. In addition, this article explores what the future holds for asset
management as utilities move toward a more service-centric approach driven by
increasing customer demands, adapt to the effects of climate change, and embrace the
opportunities of new technologies.
AUGUST 2014 | JOURNAL AWWA • 106:8 | 100TH ANNIVERSARY | JONES ET AL
2014 © American Water Works Association
HOW THE ASSET MANAGEMENT
CONCEPT DEVELOPED
United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom,
the oil and gas industry identified the need
for an asset management approach to
managing physical assets in the late 1980s.
The key drivers for change, then as now,
were the need to manage safety (risk) and
achieve financial efficiency.
In 1988, a fire on the Piper Alpha oil rig
in the North Sea, linked in the subsequent
Cullen report (The National Archives,
1990) to maintenance issues on a pump
and safety valve, killed 167 workers. This
accident, combined with the dramatic fall
in oil prices in 1986, focused the oil and
gas industry on the need to adopt a more
holistic, life cycle–based asset management
approach. This focus on managing the
asset life cycle resulted in significant
improvements in efficiency, safety, and
productivity in the oil and gas industry
(Figure 1).
UK water and electricity utilities also
adopted an asset management approach
when they were privatized a few years
later. The privatized water companies in
England and Wales further developed asset
management in response to regulatory
pressures to minimize rate increases while
simultaneously improving the level of service provided to customers and addressing
the problem of aging infrastructure.
The Office of Water Services (OFWAT;
ofwat.gov.uk), the economic regulator of
the water and wastewater industry in England and Wales, was created in 1989.
OFWAT initially focused on improving
data quality, setting service-level targets,
and monitoring compliance with the service levels. The regulatory requirements
for annual information returns, asset
inventories, and valuations began to drive
data quality improvements and implementation of asset information management
systems among water companies. This led
companies to make more informed and
efficient asset management decisions and
allowed OFWAT to benchmark companies
to assess comparative efficiency.
The use of current-cost regulatory
accounting allowed water companies to
account for assets at their current rather
than historical values, which provided a
much better indication of an asset’s true
cost and allowed for future replacement
expenditures. The water companies developed five-year asset management plans
(AMPs) that OFWAT reviewed and
approved to set rates. In the first three
AMP periods—1989 through 2003—the
sophistication of asset planning steadily
Water companies use asset deterioration models to develop
rehabilitation and replacement programs and to analyze effects
on service levels based on different levels of investment.
increased as asset data and statistical
modeling techniques improved.
In 2002, UK Water Industry Research
(ukwir.org) developed the Common Framework for Capital Maintenance Planning,
which established a detailed risk-based
approach to planning asset rehabilitation
and replacement. This approach was used
to develop AMP4 in 2003–04 and included
more condition and performance modeling
to justify investments. AMP5, developed in
2007–08, required water companies to
assess what their customers were willing to
pay for services and use that information to
assess project benefits.
The water companies used asset deterioration models to develop rehabilitation
and replacement programs and to analyze
effects on service levels based on different
levels of investment. Capital improvement
plans were optimized using genetic algorithms to maximize benefits and service
levels while minimizing whole life-cycle
costs. The companies had to consider
effects of climate change and calculate
carbon costs associated with implementing
JONES ET AL | 100TH ANNIVERSARY | 106:8 • JOURNAL AWWA | AUGUST 2014
2014 © American Water Works Association
141
FIGURE 1
1980
Asset management timeline
1988: Piper Alpha disaster (UK)
1989: Privatization of water industry in England and Wales;
State Owned Corporations Act, New South Wales, Australia
1990
1994: Australian National Asset Management Manual
1996: New Zealand Infrastructure Asset Management Manual
2000
2000: International Infrastructure Management Manual; Water
Services Association of Australia benchmarking
2001: US Environmental Protection Agency’s Capacity,
Management, Operation, and Maintenance Guide
2002: Common Framework Approach to Capital Maintenance
Planning
2004: UK’s Publically Available Specification 55
2006: Water Environment Research Foundation’s Sustainable
Infrastructure Management Program Learning Environment
2008: US Environmental Protection Agency’s Asset
Management: A Best Practices Guide; Publically Available
Specification 55 updated
2010
2014: International Organization for Standardization 55001
Source: Black & Veatch
their capital programs and ongoing asset
operation. The continual focus on the balance between improved customer serviceability and financial efficiency necessitated
ever more sophisticated approaches to
asset management, with benefits accruing
to customers and shareholders alike.
In 2004, Publically Available Specification 55 (PAS 55) was developed by the
United Kingdom’s Institute of Asset Management and published by the British
Standards Institute in response to the need
for a defined good-practice approach for
assessing and implementing asset management, collating lessons learned, and providing opportunities to leverage the experience of others. PAS 55 has proved
successful as an asset management frame142
work. It is widely adopted by the UK
water industry and has become the
default international standard for asset
management.
Australia and New Zealand. The Australian government, which identified the need
to address infrastructure management
early on, promoted development of asset
management throughout the 1980s. The
Institute of Public Works Engineering of
Australia (ipwea.org) developed and
issued the Australian National Asset Management Manual in 1994; it introduced
asset management concepts and provided
guidance on how to implement them.
In New Zealand, the National Asset
Management Steering Group (NAMS;
www.nams.org.nz) was established in
1995 to develop and promote infrastructure asset management practices. In 1996,
NAMS issued the New Zealand Infrastructure Asset Management Manual,
which was used by city councils and water
utilities to develop asset management
plans. The Institute of Public Works Engineering of Australia and NAMS then
worked together to develop the International Infrastructure Management Manual, which was first published in 2000.
This built on the previous manuals and
included case studies.
The water industry in Australia
embraced asset management, with the
likes of Sydney Water and Hunter Water
in New South Wales leading the way. In
1989, the New South Wales government
passed legislation to restructure water
boards as “state-owned corporations” and
granted them operating licenses (Hunter
Water in 1992 and Sydney Water in 1994).
The expectation was for these new corporations to act as efficient commercial companies while providing improved levels of
service to customers and meeting regulatory requirements. This spurred the development and implementation of asset management approaches.
As an example, Sydney Water created an
asset management group that focused initially on maintenance before creating
AUGUST 2014 | JOURNAL AWWA • 106:8 | 100TH ANNIVERSARY | JONES ET AL
2014 © American Water Works Association
separate asset management and asset solutions divisions in 2000 and implementing
an asset management framework. Since
then, Sydney Water has developed asset
and system management plans and implemented a risk-based approach to asset
planning and a detailed business-case
evaluation process. The utility collected
data about assets, including condition and
performance, and calculated the cost of
asset replacements based on the modernengineering-equivalent replacement asset
value (Halcrow Pacific Pty Ltd, 2007).
Condition-based assessments were used to
determine the remaining useful asset lives
and to develop asset renewal programs.
Sydney Water is also using deterioration
modeling to develop its water main
replacement program.
Benchmarking has been used in Australia and New Zealand to compare utilities
and drive asset management performance
improvements. The Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA; wsaa.asn.au)
started a benchmarking project in 2000 to
examine asset management processes.
Now co-sponsored by the International
Water Association, international surveys
were done in 2008 and 2012 using
WSAA’s Aquamark Framework. Participants included water utilities from several
countries, principally Australia and New
Zealand, but also from the United States
and the Philippines (WSAA, 2012).
United States. Asset management did not
develop as quickly in the United States
compared with the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, mainly because
of the different structure of the industry.
The US water industry comprises many
more organizations and a mix of private
and municipal entities. However, some US
water utilities implemented asset management programs soon after the turn of this
century, with Seattle Public Utilities (SPU)
in Washington and Oregon’s City of Portland Water Bureau being two examples.
On the wastewater side, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) recognized the benefits of an asset management
approach with the introduction of the
Capacity, Management, Operations, and
Maintenance program in 2001. This program was one of the first initiatives to
require a form of asset management planning in the United States. It provided a
framework for utilities to use best practices to better manage, operate, and maintain wastewater collection systems; investigate capacity-constrained areas of
collection systems; and respond to sanitary sewer overflow events (www.epa.gov/
npdes/pubs/cmom_guide_for_collection_
systems.pdf).
Both the Water Research Foundation
and the Water Environment Research
Foundation (WERF) have actively supported numerous research studies to
Benchmarking has been used in Australia and New Zealand
to compare utilities and drive asset management
performance improvements.
advance asset management approaches in
the United States. Many of these studies
have leveraged Australia’s, the United
Kingdom’s, and other countries’ experience and methodologies to adapt to the US
environment, and some of the studies have
continued to build on research conducted
in other countries. One such research
study managed by WERF and supported
by the Water Research Foundation was the
Sustainable Infrastructure Management
Program Learning Environment (SIMPLE;
http://simple.werf.org/home). Based on
research initiated in 2006, SIMPLE is a
Web-based asset management learning
environment designed to help organizations implement best appropriate practice
life-cycle asset management programs.
SIMPLE was launched to help utilities
address external drivers for change such
as regulatory requirements, limited
resources and budgets, and aging assets.
JONES ET AL | 100TH ANNIVERSARY | 106:8 • JOURNAL AWWA | AUGUST 2014
2014 © American Water Works Association
143
In 2008, USEPA established the fivecore-questions framework for asset management in the Asset Management: A Best
Practices Guide (www.epa.gov/ogwdw/
smallsystems/pdfs/guide_smallsystems_
assetmanagement_bestpractices.pdf). Targeted primarily to small- to mid-sized systems, the guide provides a fundamental
and communicable structure for understanding asset management. The five core
questions broadly cover the major elements of asset management, and each
question covers multiple elements of good
practice:
• What is the current state of my system’s assets?
• What is my required “sustainable”
level of service?
• Which assets are critical to sustained
performance?
• What are my minimum life-cycle
costs?
• What is my best long-term funding
strategy?
Since promulgating this document,
USEPA has also released a series of case
studies and other documents to assist
with asset management education. Building on the guide, USEPA established an
asset management training program to
educate a broad base of industry professionals about asset management principles. The training is designed around the
five core questions and is largely aligned
with approaches presented in the WERF
SIMPLE platform.
Some US utilities have taken advantage
of learning curves established in the United
States and overseas. For example, the Tulsa
Metropolitan Utility Authority (Oklahoma)
understood the effects of organizational
structure, communication, and operational
optimization on utility performance. The
authority decided to build an asset management framework based on PAS 55 to establish a baseline and enable the measurement
of progress. Implementation and improvement of this framework form a key part of
Tulsa’s Utility Enterprise Initiative, which
provides a strong example for other utilities
144
looking to quickly leverage the available
body of industry experience.
SPU’s journey through the generations of
asset management. SPU is a good example
of an early adopter of asset management
in the United States. Commencing its asset
management program in 2002 and seeking
out best practices from around the world,
SPU identified the asset management
approach associated with utilities in Australia as the most compelling because of
its customer-centric approach, required
performance assessment, thoughtful risk
management, analytic approach to managing assets, and transparency.
Blair Troutman, SPU’s director of corporate asset management, describes his
organization’s evolution of asset management as a journey over generations. In the
first generation, SPU worked closely with
Hunter Water from Australia to develop
asset management, adopting Hunter
Water’s approach and exchanging employees to help transfer knowledge. The second
generation entailed tailoring the approach
to SPU’s specific needs by improving and
embedding systems and processes. Now in
the third generation of asset management,
SPU is developing more advanced ap­­
proaches by moving to a more servicecentric approach, incorporating climate
change impacts into decision-making, and
including social justice and equity in the
triple-bottom-line assessment.
A key component of SPU’s approach is
the Stage-Gate process (www.stage-gate.
com/) for project planning and implementation (Figure 2). The process encompasses
needs identification, alternatives assessment and business case analysis, value
analysis, value engineering, and risks and
benefits quantification and monetization.
There is no predefinition of the problem.
The Stage-Gate process introduces a rigorous and systematic approach to planning
and is typical of processes used by leading
asset management utilities.
SPU is moving from an asset-centric to
a service-centric approach using service
levels to guide strategic business planning.
AUGUST 2014 | JOURNAL AWWA • 106:8 | 100TH ANNIVERSARY | JONES ET AL
2014 © American Water Works Association
An important element of SPU’s strategic
business plan is a community outreach
program with stakeholders to examine
inequities of service delivery including
socioeconomic and climate impacts. This
strategic business plan commits SPU to a
five-year rate plan with defined levels of
service and customer experience.
Climate change is a key focus for SPU
and is recognized as a critical issue for the
management of long-lived assets that will
face dramatically different conditions in the
future. SPU is incorporating environmental
and climate change decisions into the StageGate process and building resiliency into its
asset base. Establishing interagency agreements with such agencies as the Seattle
Department of Transportation has resulted
in successful initiatives, such as building
green stormwater infrastructure to manage
stormwater flows. SPU’s more advanced
approaches, which align with leading prac-
FIGURE 2
Initiation
Approver
ASSET MANAGEMENT’S FUTURE
Adapting to climate change. For water
utilities, the effects of climate change are
associated with water availability and
quality, flooding, and the capacity of combined sewer systems. Addressing these
increased risks requires an asset management approach that is flexible and adaptable. Climate change adaptation means
taking action to ensure assets are resilient
to future changes in the weather patterns;
this thinking needs to be built into asset
management decision-making.
In England and Wales, climate change
mitigation and adaptation have been
important drivers for asset management
planning, which focuses on improving
resiliency of critical infrastructure to
Seattle Public Utilities’ Stage-Gate process for standard infrastructure projects
Gate 1
Authorize options
analysis
Lead
tices of UK and Australian water utilities,
reflect some of the latest developments in
asset management.
LOB Representative
Deputy director,
USM, F&A, or
CSCO
Gate 2
Approve business
case
Options
analysis
Gate 3
Approval to
advertise
Design
Gate 4
Approval to
award contract
Construction
Gate 5
Approval to
close project
Closeout
LOB Representative
Project Manager
Project Manager
Project Manager
AMC or LOB AMC
Deputy director, PDB
Deputy director, PDB
Deputy director, FOM
Source: Seattle Public Utilities
AMC—Asset Management Committee, CSCO—Corporate Strategies and Communications Office, F&A—Finance and Administration,
FOM—Field Operations and Maintenance, LOB—line of business, PDB—Project Delivery Branch, USM—Utility Systems Management
JONES ET AL | 100TH ANNIVERSARY | 106:8 • JOURNAL AWWA | AUGUST 2014
2014 © American Water Works Association
145
The J
ournal has been my
“go-to” source for
understanding the nuances of
drinking water since I first
became involved with AWWA
more than 30 years ago. It is a
tremendous tool for knowledge
of both regulatory/policy issues
and technical insights into
everything from water treatment
approaches to conservation to
emerging water quality
issues and is the primary
resource for most water
professionals. Even though I can
access everything in it
electronically now, I still keep on
my desk more than 10 years’
worth of issues as a
quick resource.
—Andy Eaton, Technical Director,
Eurofins Eaton Analytical
146
flooding, water resource planning, and
sewer catchment planning. Welsh Water’s
sustainable drainage plans exemplify
good practice. The plans follow a riskbased, integrated planning approach that
incorporates surface water management
strategies, asset rehabilitation strategies
identified from deterioration models, and
capacity improvement strategies identified
from hydraulic modeling. Climate change
effects are incorporated in its modeling,
sustainable solutions are promoted, and
all solutions are analyzed for their effects
on service levels.
Another good example is Sydney Water,
which assessed the potential risks of climate change impacts on its assets and
developed the Climate Change Adaptation
Program (Sydney Water, 2010). The program covers three themes: vulnerability
(detailed assessment of potential impacts),
resilience (ability to recover and respond
to events), and adaptation (embedding
climate change adaptation into business
processes). Based on the risk assessments,
Sydney Water is developing prioritized
adaptation responses and response plans
that cover the whole asset life cycle.
In the United States, climate change is
not a top issue for most water utilities.
However, a recent survey by the Water
Research Foundation reported that 92% of
Americans think water utilities should play
a leadership role in helping communities
prepare for the impacts of climate change
(Water Research Foundation, 2013).
SPU is incorporating climate change in
its asset management approach. An example of this is RainWatch, developed with
the University of Washington (www.atmos.
washington.edu/SPU/). RainWatch incorporates enhanced weather forecasting,
matching data from rain gauges and radar
to improve the forecast of rainfall in the
city. SPU’s goal is to tie the forecast tool to
field response to be able to respond to incidents in real time and warn customers of
potential impacts in advance.
“Integrating climate considerations into
all aspects of organizational decision-mak-
ing, from strategic to operational, is a
critical business imperative,” said Paul
Fleming of SPU’s climate resiliency group.
“Water utilities around the world face this
imperative, so we have to collaborate to
work on these problems and learn from
each other.”
From asset-centric to service-centric.
Most water utilities in the United States
are asset-centric, which means they focus
on maintaining assets to perform a function rather than on the service that the
assets provide (referred to as asset serviceability). Few US water utilities have welldefined service-level indicators with
appropriate service-level targets beyond
regulatory targets for drinking water quality compliance, sewer overflows, and
stormwater discharges. Improvements in
information management systems, performance data, and analytical approaches
will help utilities develop appropriate service levels to take the first step toward a
service-centric approach. The emergence
of more advanced analytical techniques
that model asset deterioration and serviceability are enabling assessment of different
investment scenarios for their effects on
service levels.
Stakeholder engagement is another element in developing asset management
strategies and informing asset management planning. It is a key requirement in
asset management standard PAS 55 and in
the new international asset management
standard International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) 55001 (Asset Management–Management Systems–Requirement). In the current round of asset management planning in England and Wales,
OFWAT required close collaboration
between water companies and their stakeholders in developing five-year asset management plans.
Customer challenge groups consisting of
customer representative organizations, businesses, and environmental regulators scrutinized each company’s plans and customer
engagement activity in developing the plans
and then reported back to OFWAT. Water
AUGUST 2014 | JOURNAL AWWA • 106:8 | 100TH ANNIVERSARY | JONES ET AL
2014 © American Water Works Association
companies had to engage with customers to
obtain their opinions on service levels and
rate increases (known as willingness-to-pay
surveys) through telephone interviews, focus
groups, and face-to-face interviews.
As water utilities become more servicecentric, these approaches will become
more routine. SPU already plans to build
on its collaborative approach with stakeholders by discussing with customers their
service-level needs and assessing the true
cost of service to customers.
Adopting asset management standards:
ISO 55001. Building on the success of PAS
55, the ISO developed ISO 55001 with
participation from more than 30 countries,
publishing the standard in January 2014.
ISO 55001’s fundamental objective is to
guide and influence the design of an organization’s asset management activities by
embedding a number of key concepts and
principles within the asset management
framework. Key principles include
• the value that assets provide to an
organization and its stakeholders;
• the roles of leadership and culture in
providing value because commitment from
all levels of an organization is required; and
• the need to assure stakeholders that
assets will fulfill their required function
and performance.
Asset management standards can provide guidance as more water utilities seek
to implement asset management programs
or advance existing programs. However,
compliance or certification against these
standards is not a measure of asset management perfection, but another step in a
continuous improvement cycle. There may
not be a regulatory requirement for water
utilities to implement ISO 55001, but there
are potential benefits in being able to show
credit agencies and investors that utilities
are good asset stewards and are managing
assets in line with international best practices. The potential for better bond ratings
by demonstrating thorough planning and
an asset management program could result
in significant capital program savings
through reduced debt payments.
Smart integrated infrastructure. Asset
management thrives on good data and
advanced analytics. With the projected
increase in installation of smart-meter
installation, there is significant opportunity for improved operational control of
water mains and customer communication in the event of an operational incident. As in the electricity sector, discussion of what “Utility 2.0” looks like is
building momentum. The role of asset
management in the new order will
become more prominent as data and analytics become business as usual.
As demands on customer levels of service become increasingly stringent, infrastructure—and infrastructure investments—will need to become smarter.
Improved targeting of pipeline rehabilitation and replacement is one potential move
in the right direction. The costs, technical
challenges, and disruption caused by
assessing the condition of water mains are
significant, so only a relatively small proportion of systems are assessed each year.
Although closed-circuit television inspections are routinely conducted for sewer
and stormwater pipes, predicting useful
remaining life based on visual observation
is an emerging science.
An exciting development in condition
assessment is the application of technologies to transform existing urban water/
stormwater/wastewater networks into
intelligent networks. These networks can
monitor infrastructure condition and deterioration with far greater spatial coverage
than is currently possible, and without
incurring the significant costs associated
with excavations and service interruption.
Additional information such as pressure
transients and leakage can also be monitored and prevented.
Robust analysis of frequent spatially
distributed sensor data and diagnostics,
combined with augmentation of existing
asset management practices, will help optimize capital and operational expenditure
in the future. This will prolong asset life,
defer or remove the need for capacity augJONES ET AL | 100TH ANNIVERSARY | 106:8 • JOURNAL AWWA | AUGUST 2014
2014 © American Water Works Association
147
mentation, and reduce asset failures and
incident response times, thereby reducing
any associated social disruption (e.g.,
interruptions to service, traffic disruption)
and environmental impacts (e.g., water
quality and odor).
If utilities could better assess and forecast buried infrastructure condition and
performance over time, they would be able
to rehabilitate the right pipes in the right
way at the right time. Better targeting of
rehabilitation would significantly reduce
the financial burden on utilities and
improve the reliability of these systems as
well as customer service.
BUSINESS AS USUAL
The past 25 years have seen rapid development and implementation of asset management programs among water utilities.
Utilities at the forefront of asset management are focused on optimizing expenditures and adopting a service-centric
approach. Future challenges posed by climate change, increasing cost pressures,
resource limitations, and customer expectations require a flexible and adaptable
approach to asset management.
Collaboration is required across industries and countries to share knowledge
and best practices to meet these challenges,
as exemplified by the development of ISO
55001 through meetings in multiple countries during the past three years. Developments in information technologies and
smart infrastructure will further increase
efficiency and flexibility, improve asset
resiliency, and yield enhanced levels of
customer service in the water industry.
US utilities have the opportunity to rapidly adopt best-practice asset management,
leverage the experience of leading US utilities as well as those in the United Kingdom
and Australia/New Zealand, and make the
most of the opportunities afforded by
recent technological developments. With
customers increasingly expecting similar
levels of service and communications from
their utilities as they get from their cable
telephone or cell phone providers, effective
148
service-centric asset management is essential now more than ever.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Martin Jones (to whom correspondence
should be addressed) is a principal
consultant at Black & Veatch in the
Management Consulting Division, 1120
Sanctuary Parkway, Ste. 200, Alpharetta,
GA 30009 USA; [email protected]. He is
a water engineer specializing in utility
asset management and is a PAS 55
assessor. His early career was spent with
Wessex Water in the United Kingdom
before he moved to a major international
consulting firm where he audited water
companies on behalf of OFWAT. Will
Williams is director of asset management
with the Management Consulting
Division of Black & Veatch in
Alpharetta, Ga. Jeff Stillman is the
practice leader for asset management in
Black & Veatch’s water business in
Burlington, Mass.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2014.106.0114
REFERENCES
Halcrow Pacific Pty Ltd, 2007. Review of Sydney
Water Corporation’s Asset Lives and Asset
Value Estimates, Final Report. Halcrow Pacific
Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Sydney Water, 2010. Climate Change and Adaptation:
Program Summary. www.sydneywater.com.au/
web/groups/publicwebcontent/documents/
document/zgrf/mdq0/~edisp/dd_044233.pdf
(accessed June 20, 2014).
The National Archives, 1990. Piper Alpha Public
Inquiry: Records. http://discovery.
nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/
details?uri=C7084 (accessed June 20, 2014).
Water Research Foundation, 2013. What Do
Americans Think About Community Water And
Climate Change? Water Research Foundation,
Denver.
WSAA (Water Services Association of America),
2012. 2012 Asset Management Performance
Improvement Project. www.wsaa.asn.au/
projects/Pages/Asset-ManagementPerformance-Improvement-Project.aspx#.
U6SqTbEdmAh (accessed June 20, 2014).
AUGUST 2014 | JOURNAL AWWA • 106:8 | 100TH ANNIVERSARY | JONES ET AL
2014 © American Water Works Association