AbstractEnhancing drinking water resilience has become increasingly important. However, a comprehensive analysis of drinking water emergency countermeasures is lacking. This study evaluated eight countermeasures including monitoring, local alternatives, reclaimed water, interconnection, bulk water, pre‐packaged water, emergency treatment, and isolation valves from resilience and sustainability (i.e., life cycle cost) perspectives. While countermeasures such as interconnections perform relatively well from both perspectives, there is a clear trade‐off between resilience and cost. Local alternatives and emergency treatment respond quickly and provide sustained supply during emergencies but may incur higher costs. Bulk water and pre‐packaged water are typically inexpensive but have limited supply capacity and take time to distribute. As future threats are likely to become more frequent and prolonged, it is prudent for service providers to invest in countermeasures that perform well in both resilience and cost and use an integrated approach that combines high capital projects with bulk/pre‐packaged water contracts.
