The content on this website is intended for investment professionals and institutional asset owners. Individual retail investors should consult with their financial advisers before using any of the content contained on this website. Breckinridge uses cookies to improve user experience. By using our website, you consent to our cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. By clicking “I Agree” and accessing this website, you represent and warrant that you are agreeing to the above statements. In addition, you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this website. The content on this website is not intended for use or distribution outside of the U.S., unless permitted by applicable law.


ESG Newsletter published on April 3, 2023

Investors’ Scrutiny of Water Risks Should Not Dry Up


  • Drought, water supply shortages, and regulatory risks bear monitoring.
  • Above-average snow and rain in California this winter has replenished many of the parched state’s shallow aquifers.
  • But the long-term picture for the Colorado River basin, and elsewhere in the U.S., remains focused on scarcity.

Until just a few weeks ago, municipal investors were growing increasingly concerned about the prolonged drought in the Western United States. The Western U.S. is experiencing the longest drought in 1,200 years1, and the seven U.S. states that are a part of the Colorado River compact did not meet their end of January 2023 deadline to determine a joint plan for water-use reduction2. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) may formerly declare a new allocation of water among the states, an event unprecedented since the signing of the Colorado River compact in 19223. Water could become more expensive for millions of households and businesses throughout the West. In theory, municipal credit fundamentals for water and sewer systems, as well as tax backed issuers, could be negatively impacted.

Above-average snow and rain in California this winter has replenished many of the parched state’s shallow aquifers.4 This has sated investors’ near-term concerns about water-related credit risk. But the long-term picture for the Colorado River basin, and elsewhere in the U.S., remains focused on scarcity. Drought, water supply shortages, and regulatory risks bear monitoring.  


Drought is defined by exceptionally low precipitation, usually over an extended period of time5. During a drought, rain and snow are lower than normal, and water supply levels may be affected as snowfall and/or rainfall decreases, streamflow decreases, reservoir levels drop, and/or groundwater levels are adversely impacted. Breckinridge defines drought risk, therefore, as the risk that precipitation decreases in the region, leading to a shortage in water that reaches the water table, streams, rivers, and municipal water supplies.

Drought can negatively impact credit fundamentals by reducing water use and revenues. During a drought, even if the water supply is not immediately threatened, utility leaders and local governments sometimes instate mandatory cutbacks or reductions in water use, reducing revenues from metered sales.

Water supply

Supply risk can arise from drought risk, but it isn’t necessarily the same thing. Breckinridge defines supply risk as the risk that the primary, secondary, and other backup water supplies are reduced in availability or have a higher likelihood of disruption. Supply risk can arise not only from drought but from overuse or contamination of stable water resources as well as political battles. For example, governments not facing drought risk sometimes face risks associated with too few rights to water resources, water quality deterioration, or infrastructure failures. Supply risk can also be amplified by temporary or secular changes in water demand. For example, in hot and dry conditions, households with outdoor irrigation often increase their outdoor water use, putting more of a strain on water supplies6.

It is important for municipal bond investors to understand the distinction between drought risk and supply risk. In some cases, such as Phoenix, Arizona, using drought risk as a proxy for supply risk can dramatically overstate the water supply risk, as the city of Phoenix has secured its water better than many western counterparts7. Supply disruptions can also represent material risks to bondholders, as finding additional water supplies can be costly and politically contentious.

Drought and supply risks are not solely material for water and sewer system investors. They are also important risks to consider when investing in local GO bonds. Water underpins the cost structure of multiple industry sectors (in addition to agriculture) that drive local economies. Water is an essential component of power generation, many manufacturing processes, and for much of the cloud computing and storage that powers the modern technology sector8. Data service centers, which have grown in popularity in recent years, are highly water intensive, as water is used consistently to cool servers9.

Regulatory risks 

Water is both a public and private good, and all at once a local, state, and national resource. Water governance in the U.S. exemplifies the federalist system at work10. Investors benefit from understanding the interplay among the governmental units involved with each component of water management, insofar as they can influence credit fundamentals via supply and water quality regulation.

For the Colorado River basin in particular, states have played a central role in water management since the inception of the compact in 1922. Still, the federal government and the USBR remain involved, due to the presence of major dams such as the Hoover Dam11, and the explicit ability to declare water shortages. State governments can also play a role in economic development and securing water rights. In California, for example, state growth and economic priorities in the agricultural sector partly explain California’s senior rights to Colorado River water (California has rights to more Colorado River water than any other state12, 13).

Local governments play a role, too. Critically, at the municipal level, municipal governments often hold water rights, and have the power to secure additional or alternative water supplies. Water utilities and water districts are usually in charge of sending conservation signals via rate setting (such as inclining block rate structures) or cutbacks, and ultimately manage water distribution networks and end water users. It is not possible to consider water without thinking about all levels of government.


Municipal bonds issued by water utilities (and sewer utilities) are broadly considered among the safest in the market. They exhibit exceptionally low historical default rates14. The services they provide are highly essential. Most systems are monopolies with pricing power, strong legal protections for bond holders, and general immunity to political changes. A large majority of municipal water utilities are still reporting very strong cash and reserve positions following federal pandemic aid.

Nevertheless, water risks are still worth monitoring. We believe water risk should be evaluated alongside energy and carbon emissions as a major sustainability and credit consideration. We anticipate that water risks may become increasingly important to municipal credit fundamentals, over the long-term, for some issuers.










[10] Both the federal government and state governments are involved in water management, in different ways depending on the specific jurisdiction. For example, aquifers often stretch across state boundaries, but are not managed at the federal level ( Rivers and streams, however, if navigable or meeting certain tributary definitions, are considered “waters of the U.S.”, and adhere to federal Clean Water Act standards (






This material provides general and/or educational information and should not be construed as a solicitation or offer of Breckinridge services or products or as legal, tax or investment advice. The content is current as of the time of writing or as designated within the material. All information, including the opinions and views of Breckinridge, is subject to change without notice.

Any estimates, targets, and projections are based on Breckinridge research, analysis, and assumptions. No assurances can be made that any such estimate, target or projection will be accurate; actual results may differ substantially.

Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Breckinridge makes no assurances, warranties or representations that any strategies described herein will meet their investment objectives or incur any profits. Any index results shown are for illustrative purposes and do not represent the performance of any specific investment. Indices are unmanaged and investors cannot directly invest in them. They do not reflect any management, custody, transaction or other expenses, and generally assume reinvestment of dividends, income and capital gains. Performance of indices may be more or less volatile than any investment strategy.

Performance results for Breckinridge’s investment strategies include the reinvestment of interest and any other earnings, but do not reflect any brokerage or trading costs a client would have paid. Results may not reflect the impact that any material market or economic factors would have had on the accounts during the time period. Due to differences in client restrictions, objectives, cash flows, and other such factors, individual client account performance may differ substantially from the performance presented.

All investments involve risk, including loss of principal. Diversification cannot assure a profit or protect against loss. Fixed income investments have varying degrees of credit risk, interest rate risk, default risk, and prepayment and extension risk. In general, bond prices rise when interest rates fall and vice versa. This effect is usually more pronounced for longer-term securities. Income from municipal bonds can be declared taxable because of unfavorable changes in tax laws, adverse interpretations by the IRS or state tax authorities, or noncompliant conduct of a bond issuer.

Breckinridge believes that the assessment of ESG risks, including those associated with climate change, can improve overall risk analysis. When integrating ESG analysis with traditional financial analysis, Breckinridge’s investment team will consider ESG factors but may conclude that other attributes outweigh the ESG considerations when making investment decisions.

There is no guarantee that integrating ESG analysis will improve risk-adjusted returns, lower portfolio volatility over any specific time period, or outperform the broader market or other strategies that do not utilize ESG analysis when selecting investments. The consideration of ESG factors may limit investment opportunities available to a portfolio. In addition, ESG data often lacks standardization, consistency and transparency and for certain companies such data may not be available, complete or accurate.

Breckinridge’s ESG analysis is based on third party data and Breckinridge analysts’ internal analysis. Analysts will review a variety of sources such as corporate sustainability reports, data subscriptions, and research reports to obtain available metrics for internally developed ESG frameworks. Qualitative ESG information is obtained from corporate sustainability reports, engagement discussion with corporate management teams, among others. A high sustainability rating does not mean it will be included in a portfolio, nor does it mean that a bond will provide profits or avoid losses.

Net Zero alignment and classifications are defined by Breckinridge and are subjective in nature. Although our classification methodology is informed by the Net Zero Investment Framework Implementation Guide as outlined by the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, it may not align with the methodology or definition used by other companies or advisors. Breckinridge is a member of the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials and uses the financed emissions methodology to track, monitor and allocate emissions. These differences should be considered when comparing Net Zero application and strategies.

Targets and goals for Net Zero can change over time and could differ from individual client portfolios. Breckinridge will continue to invest in companies with exposure to fossil fuels; however, we may adjust our exposure to these types of investments based on net zero alignment and classifications over time.

Any specific securities mentioned are for illustrative and example only. They do not necessarily represent actual investments in any client portfolio.

The effectiveness of any tax management strategy is largely dependent on each client’s entire tax and investment profile, including investments made outside of Breckinridge’s advisory services. As such, there is a risk that the strategy used to reduce the tax liability of the client is not the most effective for every client. Breckinridge is not a tax advisor and does not provide personal tax advice. Investors should consult with their tax professionals regarding tax strategies and associated consequences.

Federal and local tax laws can change at any time. These changes can impact tax consequences for investors, who should consult with a tax professional before making any decisions.

The content may contain information taken from unaffiliated third-party sources. Breckinridge believes the data provided by unaffiliated third parties to be reliable but investors should conduct their own independent verification prior to use. Some economic and market conditions contained herein have been obtained from published sources and/or prepared by third parties, and in certain cases have not been updated through the date hereof. All information contained herein is subject to revision.  Any third-party websites included in the content has been provided for reference only. Please see the Terms & Conditions page for third party licensing disclaimers.