What Does a Decade of Fair Market Deals Tell Us About Water’s Future?

[00:00:00] Speaker A: $180. That's what large drinking water utilities budgeted per person for capital improvements in 2025. Based on Bluefield's analysis of almost 800 utility capital improvement plans and more than 36,000 projects each year over the last five years. That's up from roughly 120 per person in 2023. So what does this tell me? This tells me that inflation, elevated labor costs and supply chain pressures are driving utility budgets higher. But utilities aren't getting 50% more infrastructure for that money. Feels like they're just paying more to stand still. [00:00:57] Speaker A: I am Rhys Tisdal and this is the Future of Water in which we talk about all the ways which companies, utilities and all those people are addressing the challenges and opportunities in water. This is episode 133. That's a 133 and I have a good feeling it's going to be a good one. Actually, I think it might be a great one. That's because once again I'm joined by my colleague from Bluefield Research, Megan Bondar, who's just wrapped up some more analysis to share with you. And this time it's some solid analysis on utility consolidation through fair market value. If you've been wondering, or should I say following the water space, you know that fair market value, or FMV as we might call it, has become critical yet I think maybe even misunderstood tool for addressing the US water sector's fragmentation. These legislated mechanisms are essentially designed to grease the skids for system consolidation. There are after all 49,000 plus drinking water systems and another 23,000 plus systems, wastewater systems in the U.S. so the idea is that these policies give not only investor and utilities, but also municipalities a clear path and cleaner valuation when selling their water and wastewater assets. So in this episode Megan and I are going to dig into questions driving the debate. Why is fair market value suddenly in the news again? How does it differ from traditional utility acquisitions? And then how's the landscape shifting? Who's using it? Where's it happening? Which states. But before we get to Megan, you're going to have to bear with me just a little bit longer because something caught my eye this past week. AECOM is back in the news. At least it is a Bluefield research. That's because AECOM has just made a $390 million acquisition of AI startup Conigli, which signals another shift towards of the company becoming more tech centric. A tech centric engineering firm. With AI now able to automate a large chunk of core engineering tasks. Aecom, like many Others see this as not only a path to greater efficiencies but also higher margins differentiation perhaps and maybe even tech level valuations that are some setting off a new competitive dynamic across the AEC or the architecture, engineering and construction sector. So what does this mean for water? Three things jumped out at me. AI is seemingly collapsing. The billable hours model consigly reportedly automates. At least these are the numbers out being thrown out there. 90% of engineering tasks. I say that with some skepticism, but it does echo a broader shift in the services sector. Looking outside of this deal specifically, I was also reading something this week. McKinsey, while not an engineering firm, now reportedly delivers 25% of its projects on an out on outcome based fees rather than billable hours. It's also cut 5,000 rolls while deploying 12,000 AI agents and teams that once covered projects with 14 consultants supposedly now run them with two to three consultants plus AI textile. Valuation economics seem to be rewarding these moves towards automation. Obviously if you're getting rid of 5000 rolls then your valuation is going to go up. But also software, a move towards software earns 7 to 10 times revenue multiples versus the 1 to 2 maybe for consulting services. So I don't know if this is a great analogy, but it just does make me think a little bit back in the day. So within the last decade of Innovise, when it was under mwh. [00:05:20] Speaker A: Innovise was kind of held to the side, it had higher margins and a lot of firms and companies would come to Bluefield to kind of figure out how is Navise doing it? Why are their margins higher? What makes them so special? Because you know, compared to the rest of their consulting and engineering practice, Navise seemed to be making pretty good money at the time for what they were doing. Now Innovize has since then been sold off from MWH to Stantec and then eqt and now it's owned by Autodesk. [00:05:56] Speaker A: And then lastly, my other thing that came to mind was aecom. It's one of the largest players engineering players in the water space and it's just fired what seems to be a pretty big shot that it's going to force peers to even accelerate their thinking even more than they already have. The truth is every engineering firm has seen this coming. We've had a number of discussions with firms about this and AECOM is simply one of the first to make a big move at this scale, at least a $390 million move. And AECOM is also, I can't help Saying this, I think last time I brought up aecom, it really had to do in the context of WSP approaching Jacobs for an acquisition. But also WSP approached AECOM several years ago during COVID And that's why I said they're back in the news again, because I just mentioned this on a podcast at least one or two episodes ago. So with that being said, that's what's caught my eye this past week. Let's get to Megan Bondar and talk about utility consolidation and what's happening in that space as far as fair market valuation policies and legislation. [00:07:19] Speaker A: All right, so I'm joined here by Megan Bondar. Megan, how are things? [00:07:23] Speaker B: Yeah, things are going pretty good. How about you, Rhys? [00:07:26] Speaker A: Things are good. [00:07:28] Speaker A: Is we were talking about because we were the first two people in the office, I think this is a polar vortex. If it's not, it sure feels like one. Because it was tough coming in this morning. I think I told you the last block to the office was. [00:07:47] Speaker A: Probably the happiest. I've been walking through the doors. It was pretty tough. So hopefully the train and commute in for you wasn't too bad. [00:07:56] Speaker B: Yeah, no, it was pretty easy getting into the city this morning. You know, Friday afternoon, I mean, Friday morning light traffic, but yeah, definitely bundled up today. So pretty chilly. [00:08:07] Speaker A: Well, I guess maybe I should have started with this. Welcome back to the podcast. You've been a frequent guest recently, and maybe that's partly because you're cranking out a bunch of research and analysis. So I grabbed you the other day and said, hey, the stuff you've been doing on fair market valuations and its role, at least the mechanism or legislation, its role in utility consolidation, it's been in the news a little bit. And so why don't we. I wanted to take this opportunity to grab you and maybe share with some of the listeners. What are we seeing, because we've got a report coming out in the next, imminent, I think next couple days, and it may be out by the time this episode hits the street. So what's prompted us to undertake this analysis of fair market value? [00:09:00] Speaker B: Sure. So there's a number of reasons behind why we're pursuing this research now. So we've now been tracking utility M and A on a quarterly basis for over a decade now. And the utility strategies and ownership team here at Bluefield System Consolidation Drivers is a focus for us heading into the new year. So, you know, it felt time to, you know, look back and reflect upon the market evolutions we've seen over the past 10 years and how that relates to our upcoming research focus for 2026. So what we've an interesting acquisition trend we've been seeing has been well, since deal flow peaked in 2021, we've seen annual acquisition declines year over year. But despite this downwards trend, we've actually been seeing the share of deals leveraging fair market value on the climb. So back in 2015, we saw fair market value deals make up about 3% of the overall annual deal flow share. But now in 2025, so far that share has soared up to around 17%, all acquisitions we've tracked. [00:10:08] Speaker A: So yeah, and what I think that data, when we're talking about 2025, we're looking at about we're three quarters in. Right. We haven't closed out Q4, so that's where we are year to date. But I think, you know, and there was some discussion at least the two of us were having about what was happening. There's been some news. We talked about a research note because we have so much data, we agreed, hey, it might be easier and more interesting to kind of throw this into a slide deck. [00:10:42] Speaker A: Style report with a lot more exhibits and trends. So what? But I guess maybe what's another reason we've been seeing public pushback, you know, when it comes to fair market value. [00:10:56] Speaker A: What'S happening in the markets that's causing the discussion? [00:11:00] Speaker B: Sure. So I think just in the grand scheme of things too, affordability concerns and challenges, they're pretty paramount right now, especially in like a less confident economy with like, you know, less consumer confidence. So I think like, you know, even on the both utility and ratepayer side, I also track municipal utility rates and I've seen repeatedly utility site soaring electricity costs, water treatment costs. But especially in this current climate, ratepayers are also like utility bills are getting more heavily scrutinized by ratepayers. So what we've been seeing in the market is recent public sector resistance to this alternative rate mechanism that's called fair market value. So in Pennsylvania, that's a pretty salient state right now because we've been seeing a lot of, well, Pittsburgh earlier this year, they preemptively banned future attempts to privatize their water and wastewater system. So there has just generally been more resistance and growing resistance to privatization in the state. And the General assembly of the state has also seen a lot of proposals to either revise or outright repeal fair market value. So that's definitely been a state we've been keeping a close eye on. [00:12:17] Speaker A: Then there are other, what about other states. Are you seeing other pushback as far as its use? [00:12:24] Speaker B: Illinois immediately comes to mind with ratepayers there. And general public have been calling for more influence of public intervention in the fair market value appraisal process as well as just general. More general transparency in the process as well. [00:12:41] Speaker A: Yeah. So I think what's interesting is there's pushback. We're seeing it in the news, whether anything happens, whether we're not saying one way or another, but there is this sort of, I don't know, is it fomenting resistance? And maybe that's because of social media, more empowered public resistance. I think your point about affordability is good. So why don't we even take a step back? Right. We're talking about fair market value. Fair market value legislation, maybe explain, like what does it mean? What are we talking about when we use that term or phrase? [00:13:15] Speaker B: Sure. So it gets pretty technical fast. So I'm going to provide both a formal definition as well as, like, you know what it means, like breaking it down a bit further. So to put it in like, you know, formal definition, fair market value, or, you know, sometimes I abbreviate, as, you know, fmv. It's an alternative rate mechanism that allows the fair market value purchase price to be included in the rate base of the newly acquired system. So meanwhile, when you're looking at the traditional appraisal process for a water or wastewater utility acquisition, the purchase price of a system is in the original rate base value minus the depreciation. So essentially what this means in a nutshell is fair market value is designed to encourage acquisitions of distressed systems by making their purchase price more favorable to buyers. Because it's a bit tricky to see the value add when a system is in severe violation. And you want to make that system more appealing to buyers to encourage remediating that system. So it can help with value add of a severely distressed system. [00:14:20] Speaker A: Yeah, and some of the systems are old. Right. They're fully depreciated. So if you look at it that way, they're not worth much. Right. But yet at the same time, they are providing real value, they're providing services. They're valuable to the community itself. So if you're a buyer and you buy it on using traditional methods, you know, then it's not worth much and the community therefore is not going to get much for the system. But what we've seen is these fair market value legislations, what they are is another. They're basically setting up a mechanism to appraise the systems for their fair Market value. And every state is a little bit different. Right. And maybe even more specifically, and this is the question for you, they're not applicable in every state, correct? [00:15:11] Speaker B: That's correct. So it's about 15 states that have full fair market value legislation or fair market value adjacent legislations and policies. So the first state to pass this legislation was California, all the way back in 1997. And the most recent state to pass it was Florida, just as recently as 2023. But in addition to the 13 states that have the full fledged FMV legislation, we also have West Virginia and Kentucky, which have also passed alternative acquisition mechanisms, but they aren't exactly the same as fair market value. [00:15:48] Speaker A: And you know, another one coming down the pipe, which you probably aren't going to mention, but because I'm a gamecock, South Carolina has just proposed it, correct? [00:15:58] Speaker B: Yeah, that's correct. So earlier this year they proposed a bill, you know, that would essentially require the state utility commission to consider the fair market value of the water or wastewater systems that are being proposed to be transacted. [00:16:16] Speaker A: Okay. And then in brief, how do they. They're not all the same. So how do they differ? Is there a way of, do you, have you broken it out in any way to kind of figure out the mechanisms themselves? What are their approaches or what's their angle as far as application? [00:16:33] Speaker B: Sure. So some states, you know, so as you're saying, there are certainly state differences and different attitudes to how fair market value legislation is being approached. So in some states, say Texas and Florida, there are system size restrictions that require buyers to surpass a certain threshold of active connections. And in other states, say Iowa, Missouri, we're seeing seller profile requirements where only publicly owned utilities can be sold under fair market value legislation. So in a way, fair market value legislation can encourage like, you know, these publicly held utilities to be sold to these larger privately owned entities. [00:17:18] Speaker A: All right, that makes sense because every state, like I said, has a different angle what they're trying to do. And I said even in the intro to this conversation, and that is it really is a way of the design is to grease the skids. Right. To make the sale price higher for the municipalities based on the value fair market valuation of their assets. And so they're, the town, community, municipality will get more money and then, you know, the. It will drive consolidation. The investor owned or whoever the buyer is will more likely get the deal. So. Well, what are the, and this is really maybe where the rub is. What are the most significant impacts or trends that we see in our data when we compare the different types of M and A. So FMV driven M and A versus the more traditional approach. [00:18:18] Speaker B: So probably the most glaring difference we see is the cost per connection figures from fair market value deals to non fair market value deals. So We've tracked around 1500 approved utility M and A deals over the past decade, and out of these 1500, just about over half have disclosed their purchase price. And when we look at these subset of deals, the average cost per connection for non fair market value deals sits at around $2,143 per connection. But the cost per connection of fair market value acquisition stands at around 3,983. So what we're seeing is fair market value deals consistently reporting these higher cost per connection values. And this is like owning to the higher system valuations and also the affordability concerns that we had discussed prior. [00:19:14] Speaker A: Right. And so. [00:19:17] Speaker A: In brief, the rub is the buyer is paying more per connection across the board, according to you. Right. So they're paying, you know, almost $4,000 per connection versus 2,100 traditionally. So that. But that benefits the community. The rub is that ultimately that increase those. The, the cost is ultimately passed off to the ratepayers. Right. In some prescribed time period, there may be a rate freeze or there may be other mechanisms in place. But isn't that really what the pushback is? [00:19:56] Speaker B: Yeah, because when it, you know, hits home close to wallets, then comes under a lot of scrutiny. [00:20:01] Speaker A: And so the question is, is this really benefiting the community? And that's where people get upset when we look at timing. One of the things we do tracks approval times, does it vary? Is it a more political process in going through FMV versus the other methods? [00:20:17] Speaker B: Yeah, so this is an interesting question to dive into. So based on strictly the numbers in our data, we're seeing fair market value transactions take around two extra months longer on average to gain regulatory approval than non FMV transactions. But it does make you wonder because the fair market value states we're seeing, say Texas, and even for non FMV deals, Texas is one of the states, if not the state, with the longest approval time on average. So we're seeing that regulatory climate for both the non FMV and FMV deals. And so the fact that a lot of these fair market value deals are happening in Texas, it makes you wonder if it's the fair market value process itself or if it's the regulatory climate in general. And also too, considering the buyer profiles where you're seeing a lot of these, the top leading utilities like American Waters, the essential utilities, they're the ones leveraging this alternative mechanism. So it makes you wonder too. And these systems tend to skew larger when you're looking at the FMV deals. So there's a number of variables to consider here. So yeah, it is definitely an intricate question to break down. So there is a lot at play here when considering the longer approval times. [00:21:31] Speaker A: And to that point, I think, and maybe this is what you're getting at is the system sizes. You're saying that the FMV deals are larger systems rather than the small ones. [00:21:41] Speaker B: Yes. So one stat we've seen is that almost half of fair market value deals have transferred medium to large size systems compared to just 12% of non fair market value deals. And also even maybe this is more interesting as well is roughly 87% of connections transferred and fair market value deals have been served by medium to large systems. So we're definitely seeing like, you know, versus non fair market value deals. We're seeing that skew toward, you know, the bigger systems for fair market value deals. [00:22:16] Speaker A: Okay. And so I mean this is. It gets all the data that we have and much of is on you. You've pulled it together. So going back to the beginning, the trend has been that 3% in 2015, 3% of deals transactions, just the transactions themselves, not based on connections, but they were fair market value. Now it's gone to 17%. And I think in any given year, I think historically the average of deals has been about 130. 135 transactions a year. No, last year maybe this year probably be a little bit down. So. [00:22:58] Speaker A: What'S the number? We're looking at deals just for context, roughly speaking. [00:23:03] Speaker B: So in quarter one through quarter three of 2025, we've seen about 85 deals or give or take. So and usually in quarter four we do see a slight uptick in the quarterly average, but we're not expecting to get close to that 10 year average. So we probably will be seeing like a slightly lower annual count this year. [00:23:30] Speaker A: Right. So let's just say we get to a hundred deals. Right. I'm using simple math. So we're looking at about, you know, 20 of those deals would be fair market value. Based on the numbers you're saying in 2025, you know, like 17 to 20% will be fair market value. So that sounds right. [00:23:48] Speaker B: Yes. [00:23:49] Speaker A: Okay. All right. So where's it being used? Right. Were you going to jump in there? I see you on video and you're going to make a comment about how many deals so Go for it. Help the listener out. [00:24:01] Speaker B: Well, I guess one thing I do want to add as well, just going back to when I was alluding to the cost of connections and use higher valuations is I think it's interesting to consider how I think of Almost Water as a sleeping giant in a sense where you're looking at like these municipalities considering you know, going back to those affordability concerns. And I was citing the higher operations and maintenance costs that we've seen over the years. So I think fair market value, it's definitely tempting these municipalities because it almost is like a resort to being able to like, you know, we've seen like rising municipal debt. We're seeing like you know, wanting to and also distressed systems as well because you know, the regulatory climate looking at like, you know, new PFAS regulations to hit as well as like, you know, these like other water quality concerns. So definitely seeing. And these capital costs keep snowballing especially as this aging infrastructure is you know, patching, putting a band aid on it and patching it up temporarily but ultimately putting the high soaring costs like kind of pushing it off year over year. But the problem just keeps surmounting. So it's tricky because it's just fair market value is pretty controversial because it can unfortunately lead to higher cost for ratepayers. But at the same time there are these really, these capital concerns that also are for health based reasons as well as if your infrastructure is leaking and non revenue water. Think as you talked about in your intro, that is a growing industry conversation as well. So fair market value is just such an interesting topic to cover because there's so many ways of looking at it and it's not without its scrutiny. But at the same time water is just such a problem to resolve. [00:25:55] Speaker A: Yeah, I think there is no free lunch. Right. And I was saying this, I was speaking at the Water Collaborative Delivery association meeting. Q4 meeting was actually in Boston this year and just talking to them and one water, in some respects everybody deserves it. Everybody deserves reliable drinking water, good water quality, wastewater treatment. Everybody deserves to be connected to the system in one way or another. And that's agree with that we're in the wealthiest nation in the world, we should have that. But it does cost money to deal with all of these challenges and problems. And you know, when you're talking about 17 to 18% water losses or leakage rates, it's pretty significant. Right. And I think even I've talked about, you know, capital improvement plans. Right. Capital improvement plans per person on average according to Our data. [00:27:03] Speaker A: Was $180 this past year. In 2025, those were the budgeted dollars. In 2023 was only $120 per person on average. So something's got to happen. And there are a lot of systems and I think really this is a discussion that we have and it really gets to utility consolidation. Should it happen? Where should it happen? How should it happen? Should it be publics buying public? Should it be publics buying private? Should it be IOUs buying all of the same? [00:27:38] Speaker A: Look, at the end of the day, there are too many systems and there are a number of systems that are one not only in violation and underserving their communities, sometimes disadvantaged, but oftentimes they're also adjacent to a well run fully operating system, I mean within a mile or two. So could they be connected or not? And that's a bigger discussion we're having. So while we digress into sort of the bigger challenges of the utility space, Fair market value is exactly, you're exactly right, it is controversial. There's public pushback. How has it come to be? I think you mentioned what we're in 13 state, 13 plus depending on how you look at it, whether you include Kentucky, West Virginia, South Carolina is coming down the pipe. [00:28:34] Speaker A: But it is controversial in these states because people are seeing higher rates or at least that the cost of those deals being passed through ultimately to them. And so why don't we talk a little bit about where it is happening because that's where the pushback is going to be. So geographically, how's it changing or evolving? [00:28:57] Speaker B: So over the past decade, Illinois overall has counted for the greatest share of fair market value transactions. But increasingly since 2020, what we've been seeing is that growing utilization in Texas, because I want to say Texas passed fair market value in 2019. And usually if a policy is passed in a state, it may take a year or two or so for utilities to actually pounce upon it or for those approved transactions to actually go through. So definitely in Texas we're seeing that new hub of fair market value deal flow. And I think it's interesting to also looking forward as well because the recently announced Central Utilities American Water merger. So what this means is that American Water, upon regulatory approval of this transaction, we'd be seeing American Water enter the state of Texas. So we mentioned earlier on this episode that Essential Utilities American water top two leading IOUs leveraging fair market value legislation. But American Water. [00:30:04] Speaker B: Noticeably more even than Essential Utilities has leveraged fmv. So if American Water is to enter the state with Such an expansive platform as essential utilities. I think it's interesting considering the question, what does that merger mean for the future of fair market value in Texas where it already has such a strong hold? Does it mean that I'll have an even stronger hold on the state? [00:30:27] Speaker A: Yeah, so maybe. Why don't we just jump to that and that, because that's the question I do have is one who's doing it. You mentioned American and essential. And it's my understanding that they've also played the biggest role in lobbying, you know, lobbying efforts or lobbying for these policies to be implemented in the, in their respective states where they operate. So what share of the total do they represent and are they, is that changing at all? You know, based on going from 3% to 17% of deals, does the mix of players change at all? Are we seeing anything emerging there? [00:31:07] Speaker B: Sure. So if we're just looking at five year blocks from 2015 to 2020, these two leading utilities accounted for over 90%. Want to say it was even 93% of fair market value deals from 2015, 2020. But if we're looking from 2020 through quarter three of 2025, we're seeing these two utilities share fall to around 66% because we're seeing that increased buyer participation. And to call out a few of those utilities, we've seen Nexus Water Group, Central states, water resources, H2America especially leveraging that appraisal process in Texas. And I think H2America is really interesting to call out because the recently announced pending acquisition of Quad Vest represents a new scale for fair market value in the state. So it'll be interesting seeing that acquisition unfold. [00:32:04] Speaker A: Yeah, when we used to, you know, when we started looking at fair market value legislation, we'd like you could look at the policy map that we have and I think you have another map in this report you've put together. It was mainly, you know, it was Pennsylvania, it was Illinois, maybe a little bit in Indiana if I recall. Don't get out over my skis here. But since Texas, to your point, since it passed legislation, it has become a hotbed. It's not only a hotbed for like to this point, fair market value implementation, but also for just number of investor owned utilities in that space. It's a fragmented market. There's a lot of demand in. Texas is good for business as they say. So there's a lot of active players there. You know, Cal Water, like you said, H2O now essential central states, et cetera. [00:32:59] Speaker B: Exactly. And even for a number of reasons as well. So utility M and A, but also Cal Water recently announced intentions to pursue alternative water supplies to support data centers in the state. So water reuse initiatives are climbing in Texas. So really just seeing like host of opportunity like all across the state and even O and M operations and maintenance, third party contracts. Texas a hotbed for that as well, particularly the municipal utility districts like you know, especially around the Texas triangle, like you know, Houston, no like metropolitan areas. So just in so many regards we're just seeing the climate of Texas like being so attractive for these utilities as well as, you know, these engineering companies and third party O and M providers. So yeah, it's a flourishing state. [00:33:50] Speaker A: Nice. All right, so well that's fair market value legislation implementation, lots of data. I know you have a ton and I think you gave the listeners plenty to chew on. So that being said, on a cold, cold morning in Boston, what else are you working on? Or at least you know, this is going to hit the streets pretty soon. What's on your agenda? [00:34:13] Speaker B: Sure. So a number of things. We're looking at municipal utility rates. So that's the data collection process currently working on. So that's in the works. And also past few weeks collected unregulated utility M and A. So and as I mentioned at the beginning of this episode, system consolidation drivers and you know, getting more into that. So yeah, looking forward to working more on that as we head into the new year. [00:34:47] Speaker A: Nice. All right. Well with that being said, Megan, I know this was a quick turn because I just grabbed you said hey, let's talk about this. This will be interesting. I think the listeners would be interested in this and I appreciate the time. I think last time you talked about it was a reuse. [00:35:05] Speaker B: Yes. [00:35:05] Speaker A: You've done a deep dive if anybody's interested, water, wastewater, reuse in the US for the municipal space. Megan knows all about it. She's looked at all the hundreds and hundreds of projects where it's happening as well. So. And she knows seemingly just as much about private utilities and fair market value legislation. All right, Megan, I'm going to let you go. Let's wrap this up and let's maybe get to the weekend. [00:35:34] Speaker B: Yeah. Well, thanks for, thanks again for having me on today, Reece. It was fun. [00:35:38] Speaker A: Awesome. All right, we'll talk soon. Thanks. [00:35:42] Speaker A: All right. Well that was Megan's shot at fair market value legislation and super interesting. I think her deck that she's put together is interesting. We have a number of clients who are interested because you can look at the cost trends year over year for the different types of deals, different sizes of deals, who's doing it, where it's happening, the policies themselves. Like a lot of this stuff, particularly in the municipal water space, things happen because of policies and legislation. So there you have it. Before we sign off, I want to recognize the team that makes these conversations possible. Mike Gaylor, Ryan Sullivan, Kelly Talbott, Steph Aldock without them, this podcast wouldn't make it past my desk. I say that over and over and I'll say it again. If you're in Boston, Barcelona, New York, Chicago, San Francisco or Paris, reach out. We'd love to connect with you in person. If you have topic ideas, let us [email protected]. [00:36:47] Speaker A: Lastly, if you've enjoyed this episode and maybe I'll start saying this at the beginning, but then you haven't listened to the episode. Best way to support us is simple. Share it with a friend or colleague about the water sector. But you can also just press that fifth star, at least on Apple Podcasts and give us a rating. We'd appreciate that this podcast and these water industry insights have been brought to you by the one and only Bluefield Research. To learn more about us, Visit [email protected] Until next time, be well, be safe, and take care. [00:37:25] Speaker A: Sa.