Atlanta’s water burst is the latest reminder of America’s growing water bill.

Following a series of water main breaks in Atlanta, the country is once again grappling with an age-old conundrum: how to stay ahead of an increasingly intractable list of infrastructure challenges of water. Corroded pipes – some nearly a century old – have failed near downtown and Midtown Atlanta, leading to shutdowns, boil water advisories and growing frustration for thousands of households and of companies (the final count is not yet clear). Repair crews have rushed to repair the splinters and local leaders have promised financial aid to those affected, but concerns remain about the extent of the water system’s needs.

Atlanta’s water needs are problematic locally, but they are also nationally emblematic of a broader water infrastructure challenge: America is not investing enough in its water systems .

From Flint, Michigan, to Jackson, Mississippi, to a seemingly endless number of urban and rural communities, the nation’s water infrastructure is aging and in need of repair. Contaminated drinking water, including lead pollution, is often the most glaring sign of an often invisible challenge. But leaking pipes, combined sewer overflows and other chronic problems also persist. An increasingly destructive climate, including more frequent floods and droughts, isn’t helping matters either. The impacts of these outages are also far-reaching across different systems, leading to grid outages across entire neighborhoods and regions.

According to the EPA’s latest national water assessments, more than $600 billion in investments would be needed over the next 20 years to keep up with all the necessary improvements. Even with more federal funding coming from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), these estimates continue to rise.

Water main breaks like those in Atlanta are the quintessential example of our investment lag. An estimated 260,000 pipe failures occur each year, or about 11.1 breaks per 100 miles of pipe, according to a survey by Utah State researchers. Many of these pipes are older (53 years on average) and made of more sensitive materials such as cast iron. But what’s more striking is that about 20 percent of the pipes studied in this survey have exceeded their useful life and will require $452 billion to replace. This figure also does not take into account all the public services scattered across the country, but only reflects a fraction of the total scale of the national cost.

Although these different water infrastructure needs and costs are concerning in themselves, the larger problem is the lack of financial capacity to meet them. Local water utilities are the primary owners and operators of this infrastructure, responsible for more than 90% of all public spending each year on the country’s water needs. Yet, with more than 50,000 utilities in the United States, they are often highly localized and fragmented in their operations and service areas, as well as limited in their ability to generate predictable and sustainable revenue from ratepayers. This is especially the case in cities like Flint and Jackson, which have suffered population loss and economic disinvestment for several decades. The tension between balancing water investment and affordability is ever-present.

There is immense financial pressure on local utilities – and other state agencies – as they constantly try to muster enough resources to anticipate these needs. Beyond increasing rates, utilities are implementing new fees (e.g., stormwater fees) to keep pace with repairs and other regulatory pressures. They appeal to voters and organize referendums; Atlanta, in fact, recently approved a one-cent sales tax to cover needed water improvements. Utilities are also investing in more cost-effective designs, technology and other upgrades to provide more reliable service; Atlanta has also invested in widespread pipeline improvements and more resilient green infrastructure installations.

But even these measures are not enough, as Atlanta’s recent experience demonstrates. So where does the country go from here?

The first step is to establish increased and sustainable federal funding for water. While the IIJA has pumped about $57 billion into a host of water infrastructure improvements, that figure pales in comparison to the prices mentioned earlier. Even including additional funding for watershed and resiliency improvements through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), there is still a gap of need. Federal investment, ideally matched to need and ability to pay, can ensure that all communities get the resources they need. Recent conversations in Washington have generally supported more investments, including reauthorization of funding for flood control and other waterway projects. But the reality is that federal funding lags behind the scale of water needs nationwide, and utilities are scrambling for predictable resources.

The second step consists of supporting the continuation of local and state experiments. While many utilities are struggling to simply keep up with existing repairs, that shouldn’t be an excuse for not testing more proactive and collaborative solutions. Considering alternative revenue streams, breaking down governance silos and creating new asset management strategies are among these possible solutions. Certainly, larger urban water systems tend to have larger capital budgets, existing financial resources, and staffing levels to expedite new types of projects and other repairs. Seattle, for example, has established more comprehensive, community-led plans around different upgrades, as have utilities in Milwaukee, Washington and other cities. But utilities in cities with more limited resources, like Camden, New Jersey, and Buffalo, New York, are also launching innovative plans and partnerships to accelerate improvements.

Atlanta’s water dilemma is not an isolated phenomenon. Expect further water disruptions in the months and years to come. At this point, it’s not a question of if, but when in many communities. However, as these challenges and their associated prices increase, they will continually remind us of the need for more sustainable financing and proactive innovation.