Cover Image
Market Research Report

US Smart Water Infrastructure: Market Forecast (2017 - 2027)

Published by Northeast Group, LLC Product code 534063
Published Content info 85 Pages + PowerPoint + dataset
Delivery time: 1-2 business days
Back to Top
US Smart Water Infrastructure: Market Forecast (2017 - 2027)
Published: July 31, 2017 Content info: 85 Pages + PowerPoint + dataset

The United States has the largest and most developed smart water infrastructure market in the world, and several trends point towards continued growth and development. Northeast Group conducted a survey of nearly 340 water utilities and found that the vast majority of respondents have completed or are interested in investing in smart water infrastructure. While automated metering reading (AMR) and advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) water metering is already well developed in the US, still only approximately 60% of water customers have communicating meters, leaving ample room for market growth. Additionally, within the smart meter segment, both utilities and vendors have shown that the country is trending quickly towards AMI - even at smaller utilities. There is also an overall trend towards investing in smart city infrastructure and increased awareness of water scarcity in some parts of the country. This is creating clear growth opportunities throughout the smart water value chain.


Northeast Group's survey revealed several challenges that utilities have faced, and a number of lagging utilities that are still not interested in smart water infrastructure. Vendors will need to continue to work to improve the logistics, financing, and technical capability of smart water infrastructure to overcome these hurdles. Additionally, there are no binding regulatory or urgent economic drivers that are expected to encourage a large-scale spike in near-term investment. But with multiple avenues for growth and an industry that more now than ever is seeking to modernize, the US smart water infrastructure market will represent investment value of $8.3 billion cumulatively over the next ten years.


Key questions answered in this study:

  • What are the views of 90 US water utilities on smart water infrastructure investment?
  • How large will the smart water infrastructure market be in the US?
  • How quickly will US water utilities switch to AMI metering?
  • What are the main drivers and barriers of smart water projects in the US?
  • Who are the leading vendors in the market and how do they stack up in the survey?

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

  • i. Executive summary
  • 1. Current state of US water market
  • 2. Survey results
  • 3. Market forecast
  • 4. Drivers and barriers
  • 5. Case studies
  • 6. Vendors
  • 7. Appendix
  • Appendix I: US water industry structure
  • Appendix II: Smart water overview
  • Appendix III: Utilities providing data
  • Appendix IV: Company and abbreviation lists

List of Figures and Tables

  • US smart water infrastructure: Key takeaways
  • Figure 1.1: AMI vs. AMR for water metering (cumulative and annual)
  • Figure 1.2: Potential AMI market
  • Figure 1.3: LPWAN IoT options
  • Table 1.1: Additional infrastructure and applications that can be part of communications deployment for AMI water metering
  • Figure 2.1: Overall survey responses
  • Figure 2.2: Responses from in-depth interviews
  • Figure 2.3: US water utilities by % of customers served
  • Figure 2.4: Size of utilities interviewed for smart water survey
  • Figure 2.5: AMI vs AMR choices
  • Figure 2.6: All-in per-customer smart water meter costs in project survey
  • Figure 2.7: Follow-up projects
  • Figure 2.8: Meter hardware and communications vendors used in smart water projects identified in survey
  • Figure 2.9: Project drivers reported by utilities in survey
  • Figure 2.10: Project challenges reported by utilities in survey
  • Figure 3.1: US water meter forecast (cumulative)
  • Table 3.1: US water meter forecast data
  • Figure 3.2: Total US smart water forecast (cumulative)
  • Table 3.2: US water meter forecast data
  • Figure 3.3: Responses from interviews
  • Figure 3.4: AMI vs. AMR vs. legacy for water metering (cumulative)
  • Figure 4.1: Project drivers reported by utilities in survey
  • Figure 4.2: Percentage of interviewees mentioning specific operational efficiency sub-drivers
  • Table 4.1: Utility comments about operational efficiency
  • Figure 4.3: Percentage of interviewees mentioning specific modernization sub-drivers
  • Table 4.2: Utility comments about general modernization
  • Figure 4.4: Percentage of interviewees mentioning specific conservation sub-drivers
  • Table 4.3: Utility comments about NRW and conservation concerns
  • Figure 4.5: Project challenges reported by utilities in survey
  • Table 4.4: Utility comments about project financing
  • Figure 4.6: Percentage of interviewees mentioning specific logistics subdrivers
  • Table 4.5: Utility comments about logistical challenges
  • Figure 4.7: Percentage of interviewees mentioning specific concern over technology sub-drivers
  • Table 4.6: Utility comments about technology concerns
  • Figure 5.1: Case studies
  • Table 5.1: MWU AMI drivers, challenges, and benefits
  • Figure 5.2: Project costs and savings in Asheville, NC
  • Table 5.2: SBMWD challenges to implementation
  • Table 5.3: PWS cellular infrastructure service options
  • Figure 5.4: AMI expenditure at Kennebec, Maine
  • Figure 6.1: Meter hardware and communications vendors used in projects identified in survey (number of utilities served)
  • Figure 6.2: Meter hardware and communications vendors used in projects identified in survey (number of customers served)
  • Table 6.1: Other smart water analytics vendors
  • Table 7.1: US water utilities by size
  • Figure 7.1: US water system organization
  • Figure 7.2: Ten largest US public water utilities
  • Table 7.2: Largest private water utilities in the US
  • Figure 7.3: Private ownership of community water systems by service population
  • Figure 7.4: Average household monthly water bills
  • Table 7.3: Leading challenges cited by US water utilities
  • Figure 7.5: Smart water value chain
  • Figure 7.6: Water supply chain
  • Figure 7.7: Five layers of smart water networks
  • Table 7.4: Benefits of different water metering technologies
  • Table 7.5: US water utilities providing in-depth interviews
  • Table 7.6: US water utilities providing project data
  • Figure 7.8: Utilities contacted as part of survey by state
Back to Top