Reducing NRW should have the highest priority for every water utility. However, it can seem that there exists a state of inertia in many water utilities despite high NRW levels. Some of the most common reasons for this situation and lack of action might be:

1. Lack of political awareness

In many places, the value of drinking water is taken for granted, resulting in a lack of political attention and prioritisation. Water is often priced well below its true cost because governments subsidise it either directly or indirectly, for instance through low energy prices. With lowered energy prices, the cost of pumping, treating and distributing water is also reduced. This in turn masks the true value of water, discouraging investments in sustainable water infrastructure.

2. Inaccurate data

Having access to reliable data is crucial, as inaccurate meter readings can lead to poor decision-making across the utility’s operations. Without a clear understanding of where and how water losses occur, utilities may struggle to prioritise interventions, allocate resources efficiently or track progress over time. This is especially problematic when estimating real losses versus apparent losses, calculating the water balance or setting targets as part of the NRW reduction strategy.

3. Focus on purchasing price rather than TCO

Tenders and purchasing decisions focus solely on the acquisition price of e.g. new equipment rather than looking at the Total Cost of Ownership throughout the lifespan of the products. This will often result in poorer solutions and increase the need for replacements relatively quickly.

4. NRW is not connected to overall sustainability goals

In any cases, NRW management is treated as a technical or financial issue, rather than being recognised as a key component of broader sustainability and climate strategies. As a result, there is often little perceived connection between reducing water loss and achieving the utility’s overall environmental goals, such as reducing energy use, cutting greenhouse gas emissions or increasing climate resilience.

This disconnect can lead to missed opportunities. For example, lowering NRW levels not only conserves water but also reduces the energy needed for treatment and distribution, thereby supporting both mitigation and adaptation efforts. When NRW reduction is not embedded into the utility’s sustainability planning, it risks being under-prioritised, poorly funded or excluded from cross-sectoral initiatives that could amplify its impact.

5. Employee performance discourages transparent reporting

Admitting to high levels of NRW can be seen as a reflection of poor performance, which may discourage water distribution managers from reporting data accurately. When employee performance appraisals are not aligned with NRW reduction goals, there is little motivation to improve transparency or pursue corrective actions. Instead, staff may focus on maintaining favourable metrics rather than addressing underlying issues, potentially hindering the utility’s ability to make meaningful progress.

6. Insufficient training limits results

Reducing NRW is not just a technical task, it requires committed management and skilled staff. Without proper training in tools like GIS, hydraulic modelling, leakage detection equipment and smart meters, utilities risk falling short. Training should involve all staff levels, from planners to field technicians, to ensure that consistent procedures and quality assurance are followed.

7. Corruption leads to inefficient NRW projects

Corruption at multiple levels, spanning procurement processes, contractor selection and project implementation, can significantly compromise the effectiveness of NRW reduction efforts. In such cases, considerable financial resources may be allocated to pipe replacement or infrastructure upgrades without yielding meaningful improvements in NRW levels.

When project priorities are determined by vested interests rather than objective assessments or technical data, the result is often inefficiency, misallocation of funds and a failure to address the root causes of water loss. This not only hinders operational performance but also weakens institutional credibility and public trust, ultimately delaying progress toward sustainable and accountable water service delivery.