Impact of Inter‐Utility Agreements on Cooperative Regional Water Infrastructure Investment and Management Pathways. Issue 3 (21st March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gorelick, David E.; Gold, David F.; Reed, Patrick M.; Characklis, Gregory W.
• Is Part Of: Water resources research. Volume 58:Issue 3(2022)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2022-03-21
• Subjects: water utility -- cooperation -- demand -- deep uncertainty -- optimization -- financial risk; Hydrology -- Periodicals; 333.91
• DOI: 10.1029/2021WR030700
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0043-1397

Abstract

Abstract: Urban water utilities, facing rising demands and limited supply expansion options, increasingly partner with neighboring utilities to develop and operate shared infrastructure. Inter‐utility agreements can reduce costs via economies of scale and help limit environmental impacts, as substitutes for independent investments in large capital projects. However, unexpected shifts in demand growth or water availability, deviating from projections underpinning cooperative agreements, can introduce both supply and financial risk to utility partners. Risks may also be compounded by asymmetric growth in demand across partners or inflexibility of the agreement structure itself to adapt to changing conditions of supply and demand. This work explores the viability of both fixed and adjustable capacity inter‐utility cooperative agreements to mitigate regional water supply and financial risk for utilities that vary in size, growth expectations, and independent infrastructure expansion options. Agreements formalized for a shared regional water treatment plant are found to significantly improve regional supply reliability and financial outcomes, despite highly correlated weather and climate across neighboring supply systems (e.g., concurrent drought events). Regional improvements in performance, however, mask tradeoffs among individual agreement partners. Adjustable treatment capacity allocations add flexibility to inter‐utility agreements but can compound financial risk to each utility as a function of the decision‐making of the other partners. Often the sensitivity to partners' decision‐making under an adjustable agreement degrades financial performance, relative to agreements with fixed capacities allocated to each partner. Our results demonstrate the significant benefits cooperative agreements offer, providing a template to aid decision‐makers in the development of water supply partnerships. Key Points: Inter‐utility agreements are useful tools to help neighboring water utilities cooperate to reduce supply risks and infrastructure costs Agreements improve regional supply and financial performance versus pathways of independent action, but introduce tradeoffs among partners Agreements with adjustable financing most expose partners to decision‐making by other utilities, increasing financial risks