June 29, 2026

Building Confidence into Water Infrastructure Planning

The critical decisions that shape a water or wastewater master plan can happen before the modeling even begins: which software platform will the model run on, what kind of simulation is right for this system and what field data is needed to calibrate it. All these factors determine how much confidence utility managers can place in the plan at the end, and how useful the model will be once the plan is complete. Those questions apply whether you are planning for a water distribution system, a wastewater collection system or both. Getting those decisions right from the start is worth the effort.

Choosing the right software

There are four major water modeling platforms most widely used today: InfoWater Pro, OpenFlows Water, InfoWorks WS Pro and AquaTwin Water. Considerations for selecting the appropriate software for your utility include:

Category	Questions to Consider
Platform	Does the utility want a stand-alone option or GIS-based, which also uses a GIS license?
Consistency with Wastewater	Is consistency in user interface critical? Will the wastewater modeling software change?
User Friendliness	How easy is the software to navigate? Will users access it daily or sporadically?
Specific Features	How complex is the system (VFDs, etc.)? Does the utility want a live connection to SCADA or more robust digital twin options? How is scenario management maintained?
Integration with Other Software	Is it compatible with utility networks? How easy is it to export to other programs such as GIS and PowerBI?
Technical Support & Training	Does the vendor provide a user manual, tutorial and/or webinars? How accessible is technical support? How often is the software updated? What additional support is available from the user community?
Cost	What are the licensing structure and annual costs?

A platform with the best list of features cannot replace a tool that your team can navigate, that neighboring utilities are familiar with and that fits your long-term licensing budget.

Steady-state or Extended-Period Simulation?

Both model types produce the same fundamental outputs from a given set of conditions: pressures, flows and fire flow availability. The difference is time. Steady-state models analyze a single snapshot: pumps on or off, tanks at a fixed level, demands set. Extended-period simulation (EPS) models run continuously over a full day or longer, capturing how pumps cycle, tanks fill and drain and facilities respond to each other as demand shifts.

Four factors to consider when deciding:

1. Cost. Steady-state calibration can run up to 60% less than EPS and hydraulic analysis up to 50% less.
2. System complexity. EPS earns its cost when a system has multiple pressure zones, multiple elevated storage tanks and pump control logic where facility interactions matter. A simpler system may not benefit from the added complexity.
3. Data availability. EPS requires consistent supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) records, including tank levels, pump flow and control valve operations at regular intervals. Without that data, a more sophisticated model is harder to trust.
4. Intended use. Operational analysis, energy management and water quality modeling all benefit substantially from EPS. CIP development and fire flow analysis can generally be done well with either approach.

Steady-state modeling is a legitimate, budget-conscious way to plan for a system’s future. The goal is to match the model to what the system actually needs.

Continuous pressure data or a single flow test?

For most water master plans, temporary pressure recording is a better approach than hydrant flow testing, and the reasons come down to data quality, cost and staff time.

Pressure recorders installed on hydrants collect data continuously over one to two weeks. That time series shows how pressures change through the day, how pump cycles and tank operations register in the data and how the system responds to peak demands. The installation process is generally a lighter lift on staff time than coordinating and executing a flow test. A hydrant flow test gives you one data point in time and may miss key system performance concerns if not performed at the right time. Pressure recording also allows more locations to be covered for a comparable budget, which matters when representing a system with multiple pressure zones and varied topography.

A typical deployment covers up to 20 locations, including all pressure zones, areas near pump stations and storage tanks and points at both high and low elevations. It can also provide useful data where SCADA coverage is limited or absent. The data provides the foundation for a 24-hour EPS calibration that reflects how the system actually operates.

Good data to inform modeling

All of these decisions rest on the same foundation: the quality of the data the model is built on. For many utilities, inconsistencies across GIS, billing systems, work orders and asset records have accumulated over time and rarely surface until a modeling project forces a closer look.

A data gap analysis early in the master planning process gets ahead of that. As part of its comprehensive water and wastewater master plan, asset management program and rate study, the City of Durango, Colorado, undertook this work before modeling began. Reconciling the City’s GIS geodatabase with its advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) data revealed attribute and connectivity inconsistencies that, once resolved, allowed the two systems to work together. The data now supports the City’s hydraulic models, asset management program and ongoing transition to advanced metering. Work that looks like cleanup at the start of a project tends to pay dividends through everything that follows.

Join us at Rocky Mountain Water 2026

Our water and wastewater experts will talk more about Durango’s experience and cover a range of other topics at the Rocky Mountain Water Conference, Aug. 30 – Sep. 2, 2026, in Keystone, Colorado.

Topic	Presenter
Getting it Right the First Time: Leveraging Hydraulic Models during Preliminary Design of Water System Facilities	Dave Christiansen
Durango – Mind the Gap: Bridging Utility Data, Departments and Comprehensive Planning Practices with a Gap Analysis	Ethan Shires, Dave Christiansen
Strategic Pathways to a Modern Geospatial Program	Haley Hight
One Size Does Not Fit All: A Guide to Help Utilities Select Leak Detection Technologies Most Compatible with Their System	Claire Morrison, Steven Rhodes, Stephanie Neises
Solving the Mystery of Non-Revenue Water	Maia Dupes

 

To discuss any of these topics or arrange a brownbag session for your team, contact Dave Christiansen at David.Christiansen@freese.com.