“Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is a process that promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximize economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.” – United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Context
Charleston is the capital of West Virginia and the state’s most populous city. It is home to 47,000 residents and is at the core of a metropolitan area of more than 200,000 people. Like many other Rust Belt communities, Charleston’s population has been declining for several decades and is projected to continue diminishing in the future. Charleston is located at the confluence of the Kanawha and Elk Rivers. The Kanawha River is the largest inland waterway in the state and is a major tributary of the Ohio River. Charleston, and the broader region of Appalachia, has a long history of industrial manufacturing and mining activities, which have greatly impacted the political, economic, social, and environmental history of the region.
Currently, drinking water and wastewater in the Greater Charleston, WV area is managed separately by a combination of various public and private actors. These disconnected systems have exhibited susceptibility to risk events such as flooding and industrial contamination, which have outsized impacts on each managing entity. The most notable example of this was the 2014 Elk River chemical spill that contaminated the City of Charleston’s single drinking water source for months.
Declining population and aging infrastructure in the region, combined with the comparatively low incomes of rate payers, amplifies the impacts of these risk events, i.e. the resultant system maintenance and repair costs. West Virginia American Water (WVAW) – a private entity and the largest water utility provider in the region – has continued to increase rates while municipally-run systems struggle with administrative capacity and their own infrastructure costs.
Figure 2 – Google Earth Imagery of Charleston’s Water Treatment Plant, operated by WV American Water.
Figure 3 – Google Earth Imagery of Charleston’s Sewer Treatment Plant, operated by Charleston Sanitary Board (CSB).
Figure 4 – Map of existing drinking water system for the Charleston area.
Challenges to Charleston’s Water Systems
1. Affordability
Charleston’s greatest challenge with its water systems is the affordability of service. In 2025, West Virginia ranked as the state with the highest average water bill, with the average monthly bill being $123. For reference, the state with the next highest average water bill was Alaska, which had an average of $93 spent on water per month (Anchorage Daily News, 2025). If we look at Charleston in particular, we see that the issue of affordability is even more pronounced. Residents of Charleston have two separate monthly bills for water and wastewater service – one paid to West Virginia American Water and another paid to Charleston Sanitary Board, and each are taxed separately by the city of Charleston. Based on an average family of four’s monthly water usage (roughly 10,000 gallons), the typical water bill is approximately $217.26 a month.
The Median Household Income in Charleston is $65,812 a year (or $5,484.33 a month), and 40% of households make less than $50,000 a year (US Census, 2024). Thus, the monthly water bill for a family of four in Charleston accounts for 3.96% of monthly income, exceeding the EPA’s threshold of 3% MHI for a household to be experiencing high water burden (EPA, n.d.). If we calculate the typical sewer bill for a family of four in Charleston, using the same assumed usage, then we find that the typical bill for sewer service is $142.94 (or 2.61% of monthly MHI). So, the combined water and sewer utility bill would be $360.20 (or 6.5% of monthly MHI). The problem is compounded when we consider that 15.8% of Charleston’s population lives below the poverty line (compared to the US rate of 12.5%). The price of water is exorbitantly high for consumers in Charleston, threatening their access to water and also raising serious concerns about the sustainability of existing water service providers.
Figure 5 – WVAW Water Service Minimum Charge Schedule (source: amwater.com)
Figure 6 – WVAW Water Service Volumetric Rate Schedule (source: amwater.com)
The issue of affordability applies not only to the average rate payer, but also to the community water systems of Charleston, as well. Repairs and maintenance of Charleston’s aging water infrastructure network is among the highest regular operating costs to the local water providers (WVAW and CSB). In 2025, WVAM spent $119 million on system repairs, maintenance, and upgrades (American Water, 2025). Additionally, it is likely that leaks cause significant losses in revenue for WVAM. This challenge is compounded by the fact that Charleston’s population, and thus the customer base for the local water providers, is declining by roughly 1.17% every year. Most utilities depend on rate payments as their primary source of revenue, and with this stream of funding drying up for the local water providers, they have continued to raise utility rates – passing these costs off to the average consumer. West Virginia American Water has consistently raised their rates, totaling 15 different hikes since 2004. (Schulz, 2026) The number of rate increases, the seemingly little scrutiny from the Public Utilities Commission, and the general opaqueness of the PUC reviews has left many West Virginians with little faith in the public review process for rate increases.
2. Risk of Contamination
On top of the continued challenges with affordability in Charleston’s water system, the city also faces the persistent risk of contamination in its water resources. The most glaring demonstration of this threat was the 2014 Elk River chemical spill that impacted over 300,000 customers of WVAW, including the city of Charleston. A chemical called MCHM began to spill from a storage tank at a local industrial site just upstream from the WVAM water intake on the Elk River. The hazardous chemical contaminated the water supply and was undetected for hours. At least a dozen people were hospitalized and thousands of people called poison control with complaints of nausea and vomiting. The ensuing do-not-use advisory lasted up to 10 days for some consumers, but the distrust that consumers felt as a result of the poor communication from local officials meant that many people refused to use the tap water for long after the advisory was lifted.
The continued prevalence of industrial activity as well as the serious lack of diversity in the city’s water portfolio means that Charleston continues to have a high risk of future contamination. The Elk River continues to be listed on the EPA’s list of impaired streams – not meeting the standards set forth in the Federal Clean Water Act – due to the presence of industrial pollutants. The Elk River remains the sole source of potable water for the city of Charleston. Furthermore, the city’s aging infrastructure means that there are regular leaks in the distribution network. It is possible for the potable water supply to be exposed to contaminants in the ground that enter via pipes.
Furthermore, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) present a threat to contaminated drinking water for Charleston and many other communities situated along the Elk and Kanawha Rivers. Most communities in West Virginia have combined sewer systems wherein wastewater and stormwater are both collected and conveyed to a treatment location. However, during heavy rain events, it is common for raw untreated sewage to be expelled at overflow points directly into the Elk and Kanawha Rivers. Although Charleston’s water intake is located upstream from any of its own CSO points, there are other communities that are upstream of Charleston that also have combined sewer systems. So, the prevalence of CSOs and the fragmented patchwork of municipal sewer systems within the region means that there is a string of communities along the Elk and Kanawha Rivers that are both contributing to the contamination of water resources vis a vis CSOs, as well as recipients of polluted water from upstream.
How Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) Can Address Charleston’s Challenges
Regional Challenges
It should be noted that the City of Charleston’s water system is not entirely novel within the region. WVAW provides drinking water not only to the city but also to surrounding communities including South Charleston and Nitro. These neighboring municipalities operate under a similar system of water governance and provision as Charleston, with local sanitary boards controlling wastewater and a separate entity providing drinking water. In some cases, this provider is WVAW, though in many other instances a municipally owned public service district (PSD) controls drinking water infrastructure.
Similarly, the challenges facing nearby water systems are similar to those in Charleston. The population of the Charleston metropolitan statistical area has been in steady decline, dropping from 226,180 in 2013 to 207,456 in 2023 (US Census Bureau). This means that water utilities’ ratepayer bases are declining, with each ratepayer bearing a greater share of the costs to maintain a system that is overbuilt. Smaller PSDs tend to rely on single water sources that, in the case of a flood or contamination event, put residents’ drinking water at risk. Managerial water scarcity and frequent service disruptions continue to affect residents across the Kanawha Valley, and WVAW continues to slowly buy out PSDs that lack the capacity to maintain their water systems (see Perham, 2025; Hamilton, 2026).
Figure 7 – Proposed governance structure of the Kanawha Regional Water Commission
Proposed Solution
To address these persistent water challenges in the Charleston area, we propose the creation of a new regional, mixed-ownership One Water entity for the decentralized management of drinking water and wastewater. This regional water governing body will henceforth be referred to as the Kanawha Regional Water Commission, or KRWC. This will combine the revenue-driven approach of the private utility West Virginia American Water with the local knowledge and input of the public sector, namely the PSDs in the Charleston area, by way of a Board of Commissioners governance structure. The PSDs and their underlying municipal governments will hold a combined majority stake in the regional entity. Under this structure, the public sector stakeholders enter a contractual agreement with West Virginia American Water, who is thereby made responsible for the provision of drinking water and wastewater service to the represented municipalities. The structuring of this new regional entity (see Figure 7) is intended to stem the current status quo of WVAW’s slow agglomeration of municipal PSDs and sanitary boards while recognizing the legitimate constraints on public utilities and their ability to adequately maintain already vulnerable water systems. The Kanawha Regional Water Commission has the potential to bring forth important system-wide benefits, as well as benefits specific to WVAW, public utilities and municipalities, and consumers.
System-Wide Benefits
Greater capacity for securing funding for water infrastructure
The mixed-ownership model of the KRWC provides simultaneous access to both public and private funding streams. The commission would be able to utilize private capital and market capital from WVAW, a subsidiary of American Water—the most valuable water utility in the United States. The majority-public ownership, however, makes accessible state and federal grant and loan programs, such as the EPA’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Furthermore, consolidation of smaller PSDs and sanitary boards into the KRWC will result in shared, improved credit rating that enables more preferable lending; this benefit was seen in the case of Central Arkansas Water, which now maintains an AA2 credit rating that is higher than any rating held prior to consolidation (US Water Alliance, 2019).
Distribution of system maintenance and improvement costs across a wider ratepayer base
Currently paying different rates for water and sewer as a result of unique system maintenance and operation costs, residents in Charleston and the surrounding municipalities would see their rates equalize over the long-term following consolidation into the KRWC. While initial costs following consolidation may not decrease because of front-loaded infrastructure investments needed tostandardize system maintenance levels (US Water Alliance, 2019), the KRWC would benefit from economies of scale and be able to distribute costs across more ratepayers. This would have the effect of decreased marginal rate increases in the long term.
Increased resilience against contamination and risk events
Currently, the City of Charleston and other neighoring municipalities are particularly susceptible to contamination events and disasters. With only one source on the Elk River, Charleston’s access to water would be crippled in the event of another event similar to the 2014 chemical spill. By regionalizing water management under the KRWC and connecting other sources, such as those owned by PSDs, each participating municipality benefits in the form of increased resilience. Interconnection of existing sources, and the potential development of new sources, decreases the likelihood that any KRWC consumer would be subject to a contamination event or loss of water.
Benefits to WVAW
Larger rate-paying customer base from which to draw revenues
WVAW has previously identified its desire to pursue acquisitions of water and wastewater systems in geographic proximity to areas in which it already operates. The KRWC would mediate this acquisition process but nonetheless encourage it in a more measured fashion (American Water 2024 Annual Report, p.10). Public water utilities in the region, such as the Lincoln PSD and the Nitro Sanitary Board, are in talks to or have already moved forward with acquisition by WVAW, expanding the company’s ratepayer base and thus private revenues.
Better access to public funding and grants
As a private utility, WVAW does not currently have access to public funding streams directed at municipal utilities, such as the EPA’s Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. The mixed-ownership structure of the KRWC provides WVAW with access to these funding streams intended to support water infrastructure and water quality.
Benefits for Public Utilities and Muncipalities
Integrating sanitary and drinking water systems will reduce administrative costs
By consolidating system management under the KRWC, Charleston and neighboring municipalities could reduce their respective administrative burden and required staff for water management. Though the KRWC should not rely solely on the expertise and staffing of WVAW, consolidation will streamline staffing and improve operational efficiency. This benefit is exemplified by the case of Citizens Energy, which took over operation of Indianapolis’s water and wastewater systems and saw significantly reduced staffing requirements (US Water Alliance, 2019; Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, 2011).
Reduced cost burden of system infrastructure improvements
The KRWC benefits from economies of scale in water infrastructure investments. This consolidated regional entity would share the cost burden of system improvements across member municipalities, enabling higher-cost infrastructure investments that have been necessary but impossible to fund for smaller PSDs and Sanitary Boards (Hamilton, 2026).
Benefits for Consumers
Single billing system for wastewater and drinking water
At present, different entities operate the region’s drinking water and wastewater systems (i.e., WVAW and the Charleston Sanitary Board). This results in two separate bills for consumers. Consolidation of drinking water and wastewater management into the KRWC will enable single billing, reducing duplicative fees and easing consumer-side management of household bills.
Increased transparency of the rate increase approval process with municipalities always partaking
The West Virginia Public Service Commission (PSC) has allowed WVAW to go forward with continued rate hikes despite minimal direct oversight of whether the resulting revenues are being put towards system improvements (Lawrence, 2026). The majority-public structure of the KRWC places a check on rate increase applications to the PSC, with political pressure from constituent consumers playing a greater role in KRWC decision-making and rate-setting.
Figure 8 – WVAW-owned systems and publicly-owned water services areas, with PSDs that would benefit most from the KRWC highlighted.
Thomasson, E. D., Scharman, E., Fechter-Leggett, E., Bixler, D., Ibrahim, S., Duncan, M. A., Hsu, J., Scott, M., Wilson, S., Haddy, L., Pizon, A., L. Burrer, S., Wolkin, A., & Lewis, L. (2017). Acute Health Effects After the Elk River Chemical Spill, West Virginia, January 2014. Public Health Reports, 132(2), 196–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033354917691257
