An analysis of the ASCE 2025 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure: How did water do?

The highly anticipated ASCE 2025 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure has just been released. How did America do? How did water do?

Since 1998, the American Society of Civil Engineers has released these assessments every four years, providing both a grade score and an in-depth evaluation of the nation’s infrastructure, highlighting both advancements and areas that need critical attention.

The 2025 Report Card evaluates 18 distinct categories of infrastructure. Of particular interest to the water industry are the results for drinking water, wastewater, stormwater, inland waterways, levees, ports, and dams.

Key findings

The good news is that the overall grade for America’s infrastructure went up from a C- to a C. The bad news is that none of the three main water categories – drinking water, wastewater, stormwater – saw grade improvements.

Almost half of the 18 categories saw slightly increased grades, which contributed to an overall grade improvement. Not everything improved, but incremental improvements were made across some of the historically lowest-graded categories.

The report makes it clear that the improvement in grade is largely the result of investment from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which was pushed forward by the Biden administration and passed by Congress in late 2021. By then, the ASCE had already released their 2021 infrastructure grades, so these grade improvements can be seen as a reaction to that historic investment.

In fact, the report says it very clearly: “This improvement was possible due to the government and private sector prioritizing investments in systems that historically had received little attention.”

Considering that this is the first time since 1998 that no infrastructure category received a grade of D−, the ASCE seems to be saying, “Good job, America. You are finally starting to turn things around. Keep it up!”

Drinking water

Despite record investment in capital improvements, the grade for drinking water remained the same: D

The run-up to the massive Lead and Copper Rule projects that have been progressing throughout the country would presumably be a big mover of sentiment within ASCE’s deciding committee, but that did not move the needle. This category also saw $30 billion in funding via the IIJA for lead pipe removal, drinking water capital improvement projects, and developing responses to increased levels of PFAs in drinking water. But that also did not sway the committee.

So, why no movement? The biggest issue is that the ASCE is worried about funding shortfalls in drinking water state revolving funds (DWSRF). In the last few years, Congress has had a habit of redirecting some of the federal funds appropriated for drinking water. “Between FY22 and FY23, more than $1 billion was taken from the DWSRF program for earmarks, resulting in a nearly 45% reduction in capitalization grants for states and an almost 45% reduction in set-asides.” This is probably what prevented a rise in grade for drinking water – and it is an important concern when you consider how many expensive challenges the country’s water infrastructure builders and maintainers already face.

One important aspect of innovation that the report calls out: They note the increasing use of asset failure prediction technologies by water utilities. We’ve seen this ourselves with Autodesk customers, who are keenly interested in learning how to use AI and Machine Learning for asset management insights. The ASCE expects this trend to grow, and so do we. Many water utilities desperately need this kind of innovation. Only about 30% of utilities have implemented a comprehensive asset management plan, with just under half saying they are in the process of implementing one.

ASCE recommendations:

• Increased investment in state revolving funds – plus no more reallocation of these funds by Congress, which has happened in the last few years
• Invest in recruiting and training the next generation workforce as mass retirements loom
• Require drinking water utilities to complete risk and resilience assessments (per AWIA)
• Install digital technologies to improve system operation and efficiency
• Federal support for monitoring and removal of PFAs

Wastewater

The grade for wastewater remains at D+, unchanged from 2021, and the ASCE addresses this category last in their report.

Why has there been no movement in this grade? On the one hand, the ability to detect and address emerging contaminants has improved, which is a positive. Environmental regulations have tightened a bit, too, which should lead to higher water quality and higher customer satisfaction – both things the ASCE presumably approve of. On the other hand, there is the simple fact that fewer new wastewater plants have been built in the last four years. The sector’s renewal and replacement rate for large capital projects has decreased from 3% to 2%, with the average number of collection system failures for combined water utilities increasing from 2 to 3.3 per 100 miles of pipe.

In short, this non-mover can probably be ascribed to the perennial issue of “aging infrastructure”. A typical wastewater treatment plant lasts for 40-50 years, and many now need to be replaced. That’s going to be expensive. Even more challenging is the fact that, in general, assets are aging while the materials for upgrading or replacing components are becoming more expensive.

Going deeper, the ASCE documents a long list of positives and negatives that ultimately cancel each other out:

• On the positive side, new technology advancements are making this work more effective at dealing with a number of emerging contaminants. This ongoing innovation will, of course, require additional investment.
• There was more investment due to the IIJA – that’s a positive. However, much of the funds for the wastewater sector were for loans and loan forgiveness.
• What about reuse and the circular water economy? The ASCE is bullish on facilities that are non-discharging, meaning the effluent is not released to surface waters but evaporated or reused (eg, spray irrigation, groundwater recharge). This is, indeed a positive trend and another one we see with our customers, but pushing American municipalities to embrace effluent reuse (not to mention toilet-to-tap drinking water) is still going to be a big challenge.

Ultimately, this category remained flat – just like the number of Americans who aren’t connected to wastewater facilities. The ASCE reports that 66 million Americans (1 in 5) still rely on on-site wastewater systems like septic tanks, essentially unchanged since 2017.

ASCE recommendations:

• Better asset management practices: “Asset management must include continuous assessment of the condition of assets and prioritize investment decisions based on a comprehensive suite of data.”
• New grants/funding to eliminate and/or decouple remaining combined sewer systems
• New policies that address 21st-century concerns such as PFAs (forever chemicals) or novel biological components
• Ensure utility rates cover the full cost of service including operation, maintenance, and capital needs (ie, raise rates)

Stormwater

Stormwater began its life as a category four years ago with a D, and it hasn’t achieved a higher grade yet. This is the most important new category when looked at from the standpoint of a warming climate and a wetter future.

The first stormwater utility in the United States was established in 1977 in the City of Daytona Beach, Florida. Today, there are approximately 1,500 stormwater utilities in 42 states. Since their inception, consumers have always grumbled at the idea of “yet another tax” whenever a new stormwater utility is proposed, but it’s doubtful that as much progress would have been made on localized flooding by existing utilities without the establishment of stormwater utilities. Stormwater doesn’t just deserve its own category; it will become increasingly important.

There is a lot of room for improvement, certainly, but this is a category that may naturally lag. Adapting to stormwater threats means changing the status quo, and it’s hard to change minds – whether that’s about climate change writ large or the relatively small decision of whether or not to install a blue-green roof to control localized flooding on a project site.

As sellers of software like InfoDrainage for site-specific projects and InfoWorks ICM for catchment-wide analysis, we don’t just want to see the makers of the built world shift their focus in a greener direction, we think it’s going to become essential to meet the challenges of a warming climate. If practically everywhere will get more flooded unless action is taken, action will need to be taken. As the ASCE points out in the report, flooding is already within the top three most costly and common threats to communities, and this trend is not slowing down. From 2010 to 2019, there were more than 130 major disaster events. From 2019 to 2023 – essentially half the amount of time – nearly the same number of major disasters were recorded.

There’s a lot of work to be done in stormwater, but it’s also probably one of the most interesting categories for fresh-faced recruits to the water industry. Indeed, the ASCE recommends establishing a grant program for “green collar jobs” in the stormwater sector to “recruit the next generation’s talent and mainstream tools for data-driven decision-making, such as asset management software, life-cycle cost analysis, and affordable rate structuring.” That sounds good to us.

ASCE recommendations:

• Establish a database of the nation’s stormwater assets
• Develop stormwater funding mechanisms to mirror drinking and wastewater state revolving funds
• Build partnerships and public education campaigns
• Update rainfall standards, promote design regulations
• Promote gray, green, and natural infrastructure as mainstream options nationwide
• Reduce pollution from flooding with a regional and watershed approach
• Grants for “green collar jobs”

Inland waterways, levees, ports, and dams

Still in the realm of water but not quite as essential for water professionals, all four of these categories saw a one-step-up improvement, presumably because of increased funding. Here are the highlights from these water-adjacent categories:

• Inland waterways: IIJA funding was good, but more funding is needed.
• Levees: Fully fund the National Levee Safety Program and encourage efforts at all levels of government to achieve risk assessments for levees.
• Ports: Sustain federal and state funding for ports to address outdated infrastructure and the maintenance backlog and invest in alternative energy options.
• Dams: More funding, emergency action plans, and better determination of the effects of extreme shifts in rainfall patterns.

Something we noticed: a shift from sustainability to resilience

One interesting detail of the report is a shift in framing from talk of sustainability to talk of resilience. Every time the ASCE releases a new report, there are acknowledgements of the influence of climate change and the need for America to prepare for increased rainfall, rising waters, and ever-more-powerful storms. But this time around, there is significantly more talk of resilience over sustainability.

In the context of water infrastructure, sustainability means designing systems that use resources efficiently, reduce environmental impact, and can be maintained over the long term. Resilience, on the other hand, is about withstanding and quickly recovering from adverse conditions like system failures or extreme weather. It may help to think of investing in sustainability as a broad, strategic response to future disasters and climate uncertainties, whereas resilience is often focused on the shorter term – tactical options for fixing things that you assume will break.

What can America do to improve?

Does shifting the framing from proactive ideas around sustainability to a more reactive resilience-based approach represent a falling back from higher intentions, a compromise? Well, in the world of building and maintaining infrastructure, you gotta compromise. The ASCE has long handed out very tough grades, so it’s nice to see them recognizing America’s big infrastructure challenges and acknowledging that they did a pretty good job with the IIJA – during a pandemic, even. However, it’s disappointing that none of the three main water categories saw a rise in their grade.

Of course, there is always room for improvement. The ASCE offers three overarching recommendations for improving America’s infrastructure grade:

1. Sustain investment
2. Prioritize resilience
3. Advance policy and innovation

Will America sustain these water infrastructure investments over the next four years? The future right now is cloudy, but it’s refreshing to see America outperform after decades of low grades from the ASCE. Keep it up, America!

Take a closer look

The ASCE Infrastructure Report Card report is, as always, an important and revealing assessment of the state of US infrastructure. We recommend that you take time to review as much of it as possible. It’s filled with excellent data that is collected in well-designed charts, graphs, and infographics. We find ourselves coming back to these reports as a resource time and time again, and we commend the ASCE for the 2025 edition of the report, which does a fantastic job of balancing difficult priorities.