American Water Works Company, Inc. - Annual Report: 2013 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013

OR

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission file: number 001-34028

AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(856) 346-8200

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None.

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.     Yes  S    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.     Yes  ¨    No  S

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  S    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  S    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “small reporting company” in Rule 12(b)-2 of the Exchange Act.:

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    Yes  ¨    No   S

State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter.

Common Stock, $0.01 par value—$7,336,584,365 as of June 30, 2013.

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of common stock as of the latest practicable date.

Common Stock, $0.01 par value per share—178,722,663 shares, as of February 20, 2014.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

(1) Portions of the Company’s Proxy Statement for the Company’s 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this report.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

We have made statements under the captions “Business,” “Risk Factors,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and in other sections of this Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Form 10-K”), or incorporated certain statements by reference into this Form 10-K, that are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. In some cases, these forward-looking statements can be identified by words with prospective meanings such as “intend,” “plan,” “estimate,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “expect,” “predict,” “project,” “forecast,” “outlook,” “future,” “potential,” “continue,” “may,” “can,” “should” and “could” and similar expressions. Forward-looking statements may relate to, among other things, our future financial performance, including our operations and maintenance (“O&M”) efficiency ratio, our growth and portfolio optimization strategies, our projected capital expenditures and related funding requirements, our ability to repay debt, our ability to finance current operations and growth initiatives, the impact of legal proceedings and potential fines and penalties, business process and technology improvement initiatives, trends in our industry, regulatory or legal developments or rate adjustments, including rate case filings, filings for infrastructure surcharges and filings to address regulatory lag.

Forward-looking statements are predictions based on our current expectations and assumptions regarding future events. They are not guarantees of any outcomes, financial results or levels of performance and you are cautioned not to place undue reliance upon them. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, and new risks and uncertainties of which we are not currently aware or which we do not currently perceive may arise in the future from time to time. Should any of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should any of our expectations or assumptions prove incorrect, then our results may vary materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements herein. Factors that could cause actual results to differ from those discussed in forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, the factors discussed under the caption “Risk Factors” and the following factors:

1

Any forward-looking statements we make, speak only as of the date of this Form 10-K. Except as required by law, we do not have any obligation, and we specifically disclaim any undertaking or intention, to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, changed circumstances or otherwise.

2

PART I

Our Company

American Water Works Company, Inc., (the “Company”), a Delaware corporation, is the most geographically diversified, as well as the largest publicly-traded, United States water and wastewater utility company, as measured by both operating revenue and population served. As a holding company, we conduct substantially all of our business operations through our subsidiaries. Our approximately 6,600 employees provide an estimated 14 million people with drinking water, wastewater and other water-related services in over 40 states and two Canadian provinces.

In 2013, our on-going operations generated $2,901.9 million in total operating revenue and $369.3 million in income from continuing operations. Included in the 2013 income from continuing operations was an after-tax charge of $24.8 million related to a loss on extinguishment of debt to effect a tender offer that we announced in September 2013. In 2012, our on-going operations generated $2,876.9 million in total operating revenue and $374.3 million in income from continuing operations.

We have two operating segments that are also the Company’s two reportable segments: the Regulated Businesses and the Market-Based Operations. For further details on our segments, see Note 19 of the Consolidated Financial Statements.

For 2013, our Regulated Businesses segment generated $2,593.9 million in operating revenue, which accounted for 89.4% of our total consolidated operating revenue. For the same period, our Market-Based Operations segment generated $325.5 million in operating revenue, which accounted for 11.2% of total consolidated operating revenue.

During 2011, we either consummated or announced the sale of assets or stock of certain of our regulated and market-based subsidiaries as outlined in “Our Regulated Businesses” and “Our Market-Based Operations” discussions below. As such, these subsidiaries have been presented as discontinued operations for all periods presented, and are not included in the discussions below unless otherwise noted. See Note 3 to Consolidated Financial Statements for further details on our discontinued operations.

For additional financial information, please see the financial statements and related notes thereto appearing elsewhere in this Form 10-K.

Regulated Businesses Overview

Our primary business involves the ownership of subsidiaries that provide water and wastewater utility services to residential, commercial, industrial and other customers, including sale for resale and public authority customers. We report the results of this business in our Regulated Businesses segment. Our subsidiaries that provide these services are generally subject to economic regulation by certain state commissions or other entities engaged in economic regulation, hereafter referred to as “PUCs,” in the states in which they operate. The federal government and the states also regulate environmental, health and safety, and water quality matters.

As noted above, for 2013, operating revenue for our Regulated Businesses segment was $2,593.9 million, accounting for 89.4% of total consolidated operating revenue for the same period. Regulated Businesses segment operating revenues were $2,564.4 million for 2012 and $2,368.9 million for 2011, accounting for 89.1% and 88.8%, respectively, of total operating revenues for the same periods.

3

The following charts set forth operating revenue for 2013 and customers as of December 31, 2013, for the states in which our Regulated Businesses provide services:

Market-Based Operations Overview

We also provide services that are not subject to economic regulation by state PUCs through our Market-Based Operations. Our Market-Based Operations include three lines of business:

For 2013, operating revenue for our Market-Based Operations was $325.5 million, accounting for 11.2% of total operating revenue for the same period. The Market-Based Operations’ operating revenue was $330.3 million for 2012 and $327.8 million for 2011, accounting for 11.5% and 12.3%, respectively, of total operating revenues for the same periods.

Our Industry

Overview

The United States water and wastewater industry has two main sectors (i) utility ownership, which involves supplying water and wastewater services to consumers; and (ii) general services, which involves providing water and wastewater related services to water and wastewater utilities and other customers on a contract basis.

The utility sector includes investor-owned as well as municipal systems that are owned and operated by local governments or governmental subdivisions. The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) estimates that government-owned systems account for approximately 84% of all United States community water systems and approximately 98% of all United States community wastewater systems. Investor-owned water and wastewater systems, including a small number of private companies and developers, account for the remainder of the United States water and wastewater community water systems. Growth of service providers in the investor-owned regulated utility sector is achieved through organic growth within a franchise area, the provision of bulk water service to other community water systems and/or acquisitions, including small water and wastewater systems, typically serving fewer than 10,000 customers that are in close geographic proximity to already established regulated operations, which we herein refer to as “tuck-ins.”

4

The utility sector is characterized by high barriers to entry, given the capital intensive nature of the industry. The aging water and wastewater infrastructure in the United States is in constant need of modernization and replacement. Increased regulations to improve water quality and the management of water and wastewater residuals’ discharges, which began with passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972 and the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974, have been among the primary drivers of the need for modernization. The EPA estimated that the nation’s drinking water utilities need $384.2 billion in infrastructure investments for thousands of miles of pipe as well as thousands of treatment plants storage tanks, and other key assets between 2011 and 2030 to ensure the public health, security and economic well-being of our cities, towns and communities.  Also, in 2007 the EPA estimated that approximately $390 billion of capital spending would be necessary over the next 20 years to replace aging infrastructure and ensure quality wastewater systems across the United States. In addition, the 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers’ (“ASCE”) report, Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Water and Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure estimated that as investment needs continue to escalate and current funding trends continue to fall short of the needs, it will likely result in unreliable water service and wastewater treatment. According to the report, this can result in water disruptions, impediments to emergency response, and damage to other types of infrastructure such as roads and bridges, as well as water shortages (from failing infrastructure and drought) that may result in unsanitary conditions and increase the likelihood of public health issues. In its most recent 2013 ASCE Report Card for America’s Infrastructure it gave the water and wastewater infrastructure a grade of “D” due to the fact that much of the infrastructure is nearing the end of its useful life.  The report concluded that there will be an investment gap between now and 2020 of $84 billion for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.  

Note:  Numbers may not total due to roundingSource:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2011 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and AssessmentNote:  Numbers may not total due to roundingSource:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2011 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and AssessmentThe following chart sets forth estimated capital expenditure needs from 2011 through 2030 for United States water systems:

For 2014 to 2018, we estimate that Company-funded capital investment will amount to approximately $5.8 billion.  Of the $5.8 billion, $5.1 billion is anticipated to be utilized to upgrade our infrastructure and systems.  In addition to these capital expenditures, we are also estimating additional capital investment over the five-year period for acquisitions and for strategic capital of approximately $400 million and $300 million, respectively. Strategic investments could include opportunities in the unregulated shale arena or a major concession. Our total capital plan for 2014 is estimated to be $1.1 billion with approximately $900 million allocated to upgrading our infrastructure and systems, including infrastructure renewal programs and construction of facilities to meet environmental requirements and new customer growth.  In addition to the $900 million in infrastructure upgrades, the capital investment plan for 2014 also includes $100 million for acquisitions and $100 million for strategic investment purposes.  The charts below set forth our estimated percentage of projected capital expenditures over the period of 2014 to 2018 for upgrading our infrastructure and systems by asset type and purpose of investment, respectively:

5

Investor-owned water and wastewater utilities generally require regulatory approval processes in order to do business, which may involve obtaining relevant operating approvals, including certificates of public convenience and necessity (or similar authorizations) from state PUCs. Investor-owned water and wastewater systems are generally subject to economic regulation by the state PUCs in the states in which they operate. The federal government and the states also regulate environmental, health and safety and water quality matters for both investor-owned and government-owned water and wastewater utilities.

The general services sector includes engineering and consulting companies and numerous other fee-for-service businesses. These include building and operating water and wastewater utility systems, system repair services, lab services, sale of water infrastructure and distribution products (such as pipes) and other specialized services. The general services segment is characterized by aggressive competition and market-driven growth and profit margins.

According to the EPA, the utility segment of the United States water and wastewater industry is highly fragmented, with approximately 54,000 community water systems and approximately 15,000 community wastewater facilities. Over half of the community water systems are very small, serving a population of 500 or less.

This large number of relatively small, fragmented water systems as well as fragmented wastewater facilities may result in inefficiencies in the marketplace, since such utilities may not have the operating expertise, financial and technological capability or economies of scale to provide services or raise capital as efficiently as larger utilities. Larger utilities that have greater access to capital are generally more capable of making mandated and other necessary infrastructure upgrades to both water and wastewater systems. In addition, water and wastewater utilities with large customer bases, spread across broad geographic regions, may more easily absorb the impact of significant variations in precipitation and temperatures, such as droughts, excessive rain and cool temperatures in specific areas. Larger utilities generally are able to spread support services over a larger customer base, thereby reducing the costs to serve each customer. Since many administrative and support activities can be efficiently centralized to gain economies of scale, companies that participate in industry consolidation have the potential to improve operating efficiencies, lower costs per unit and improve service at the same time.

Water and Wastewater Rates

Investor-owned water and wastewater utilities generate operating revenue from customers based on rates that are generally established by state PUCs through a rate-setting process that may include public hearings, evidentiary hearings and the submission by the utility of evidence and testimony in support of the requested level of rates. In evaluating a rate case, state PUCs typically focus on six areas: (i) the amount and prudence of investment in facilities considered “used and useful” in providing public service; (ii) the operating and maintenance costs and taxes associated with providing the service (typically by making reference to a representative 12-month period of time, known as a test year); (iii) the appropriate rate of return; (iv) revenue produced by existing rates; (v) the tariff or rate design that allocates operating revenue requirements across the customer base; and (vi) the quality of service the utility provides, including issues raised by customers.

6

Water and wastewater rates in the United States are among the lowest for developed countries; and for most U.S. consumers, water and wastewater bills make up a relatively small percentage of household expenditures compared to other utility services. The following chart sets forth the relative cost of water and other public services, including trash and garbage collection and sewer maintenance, in the United States as a percentage of total household utility expenditures:

*Source:  Bureau of Labor Statistics-Consumer Expenditures Survey, 2012 (assumes four person household)

Our Regulated Businesses

Our Regulated Businesses consist of locally managed utility subsidiaries that generally are subject to economic regulation by the states in which they operate.  Our Regulated Businesses provide a high degree of financial stability because (i) high barriers to entry provide certain protections from competitive pressures; (ii) economic regulation promotes predictability in financial planning and long-term performance through the rate-setting process; and (iii) our large customer base.

During 2012, we continued to execute our plan for optimizing our Regulated Businesses’ portfolio. In January 2012, we completed the sale of all of our stock in our water and wastewater operating companies located in Arizona and New Mexico. On May 1, 2012, we completed the sale of our eight regulated water systems and one wastewater system in Ohio. Ohio American Water served approximately 58,000 customers. Also, on May 1, 2012, we completed the purchase of seven regulated water systems in New York. This acquisition added approximately 50,000 customers to our New York regulated operations.

In May 2011, we completed the acquisition of 11 regulated water systems and 48 wastewater systems in Missouri and in June 2011, we completed the sale of the assets of our Texas regulated subsidiary. The Missouri acquisition added approximately 1,700 water customers and nearly 2,000 wastewater customers. The Texas assets served approximately 4,200 water and 1,100 wastewater customers in the greater Houston metropolitan area.

As noted above, as a result of these sales, these regulated subsidiaries are presented as discontinued operations for all periods presented. Therefore, the amounts, statistics and tables presented in this section refer only to on-going operations, unless otherwise noted.

The following table sets forth our Regulated Businesses operating revenue for 2013 and number of customers from continuing operations as well as an estimate of population served as of December 31, 2013:  

7

Approximately 87.5% of operating revenue from our Regulated Businesses in 2013 was generated from approximately 2.7 million customers in our seven largest states, as measured by operating revenues. In fiscal year 2013, no single customer accounted for more than 10% of our annual operating revenue.

Overview of Networks, Facilities and Water Supply

Our Regulated Businesses operate in approximately 1,500 communities in 16 states in the United States. Our primary operating assets include 87 dams along with approximately 80 surface water treatment plants, 500 groundwater treatment plants, 1,000 groundwater wells, 100 wastewater treatment facilities, 1,200 treated water storage facilities, 1,300 pumping stations, and 47,000 miles of mains and collection pipes. Our regulated utilities own substantially all of the assets used by our Regulated Businesses. We generally own the land and physical assets used to store, extract and treat source water. Typically, we do not own the water itself, which is held in public trust and is allocated to us through contracts and allocation rights granted by federal and state agencies or through the ownership of water rights pursuant to local law. Maintaining the reliability of our networks is a key activity of our Regulated Businesses. We have ongoing infrastructure renewal programs in all states in which our Regulated Businesses operate. These programs consist of both rehabilitation of existing mains and replacement of mains that have reached the end of their useful service lives.

Our ability to meet the existing and future water demands of our customers depends on an adequate supply of water. Drought, governmental restrictions, overuse of sources of water, the protection of threatened species or habitats or other factors may limit the availability of ground and surface water. We employ a variety of measures to ensure that we have adequate sources of water supply, both in the short-term and over the long-term. The geographic diversity of our service areas tends to mitigate some of the economic effect of weather extremes we might encounter in any particular service territory. In any given summer, some areas are likely to experience drier than average weather while other areas we serve will experience wetter than average weather.

As noted, our Regulated Businesses are dependent upon a defined source of water supply and obtain their water supply from surface water sources such as reservoirs, lakes, rivers and streams. In addition, we also obtain water from ground water sources, such as wells, and purchase water from other water suppliers. The following chart sets forth the sources of water supply for our Regulated Businesses for 2013 by volume:

In our long-term planning, we evaluate quality, quantity, growth needs and alternate sources of water supply as well as transmission and distribution capacity. Sources of supply are seasonal in nature and weather conditions can have a pronounced effect on supply. In order to ensure that we have adequate sources of water supply, we use planning processes and maintain contingency plans to minimize the potential impact on service through a wide range of weather fluctuations. In connection with supply planning for most surface or groundwater sources, we employ models to determine safe yields under different rainfall and drought conditions.

8

Surface and groundwater levels are routinely monitored so that supply capacity deficits may, to the extent possible, be predicted and mitigated through demand management and additional supply development.

The percentage of finished water supply by source type for our top seven states by Regulated Businesses revenues for 2013 is as follows:

The level of treatment we apply to the water varies significantly depending upon the quality of the water source and customer stipulations. Surface water sources, such as rivers, typically require significant treatment, while some groundwater sources, such as aquifers, require chemical treatment only. In addition, a small amount of treated water is purchased from neighboring water purveyors. Treated water is transported through our transmission and distribution network, which includes underground pipes, above ground storage facilities and numerous pumping facilities with the ultimate distribution of the treated water to the customers’ premises.

We also have installed production meters to measure the water that we deliver to our distribution network. We employ a variety of methods of customer meter reading to monitor consumption; ranging from meters with mechanical registers where consumption is manually recorded by meter readers to meters with electronic registers capable of transmitting consumption data to proximity devices (touch read) or via radio frequency to mobile or fixed network data collectors. The majority of new meters are able to support future advances in electronic meter reading.

Wastewater services involve the collection of wastewater from customers’ premises through sewer lines. The wastewater is then transported through a sewer network to a treatment facility, where it is treated to meet required effluent standards. The treated wastewater is finally returned to the environment as effluent, and the solid waste by-product of the treatment process is disposed of in accordance with applicable standards and regulations.

Customers

We have a large and geographically diverse customer base in our Regulated Businesses. An active customer is defined as a party with an active agreement to receive a specific service from a connection to our water or wastewater system as of the last business day of each monthly reporting period.  Also, as in the case of apartment complexes, businesses and many homes, multiple individuals may be served by a single contract.

Residential customers make up the majority of our customer base in all of the states in which we operate. In 2013, residential customers accounted for 91.0% of the customers and 59.3% of the operating revenue of our Regulated Businesses.  We also serve commercial customers, such as shops and businesses; industrial customers, such as large-scale manufacturing and production operations; and public authorities, such as government buildings and other public sector facilities, including schools. We also supply water to public fire hydrants for firefighting purposes, to private fire customers for use in fire suppression systems in office buildings and other facilities as well as providing bulk water supplies to other water utilities for distribution to their own customers.

9

The following table sets forth the number of water and wastewater customers (by customer class) for our Regulated Businesses as of December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011:

The following table sets forth water services operating revenues by customer class and wastewater services operating revenues, excluding other revenues, for our Regulated Businesses for 2013, 2012, and 2011:

The following table sets forth billed sales volumes by customer class for our Regulated Businesses for 2013, 2012 and 2011:

The vast majority of our regulated water customers are metered, which allows us to measure and bill for our customers’ water consumption, typically on a monthly basis. Our wastewater customers are billed either on a fixed charge basis or based on their water consumption.

Customer usage of water is affected by weather conditions, particularly during the summer. Our water systems generally experience higher demand in the summer due to the warmer temperatures and increased usage by customers for lawn irrigation and other outdoor uses. Summer weather that is cooler and wetter than average generally serves to suppress customer water demand and can reduce water operating revenues and operating income. Summer weather that is hotter and drier than average generally increases operating revenues and operating income. However, when weather conditions are extremely dry, and even if our water supplies are sufficient to serve our customers, our systems may be affected by drought-related warnings and/or water usage restrictions imposed by governmental agencies, thereby reducing customer usage and operating revenues. These restrictions may be imposed at a regional or state level and may affect our service areas, regardless of our readiness to meet unrestricted customer demands. Other factors affecting our customers’ usage of water include conservation initiatives, such as the use of more efficient household fixtures and appliances among residential consumers; declining household sizes in the United States; and changes in the economy and credit markets which could have significant impacts on our industrial and commercial customers’ operational and financial performance.

10

Customer growth in our Regulated Businesses is driven by (i) organic population growth in our authorized service areas; (ii) adding new customers to our regulated customer base by acquiring water and/or wastewater utility systems; and (iii) the sale of water to other community water systems. Generally, we add customers through tuck-ins of small water and/or wastewater systems, typically serving fewer than 10,000 customers, in close geographic proximity to areas where we operate our Regulated Businesses. We will continue to acquire water and wastewater utilities through tuck-ins. The proximity of tuck-in opportunities to our regulated footprint allows us to integrate and manage the acquired systems and operations using our existing management and to achieve efficiencies. Historically, pursuing tuck-ins has been a fundamental part of our growth strategy. We intend to continue to expand our regulated footprint geographically by acquiring water and wastewater systems in our existing markets and, if appropriate, certain markets in the United States where we do not operate our Regulated Businesses. We will also selectively seek larger acquisitions that allow us to acquire multiple water and wastewater utility systems in our existing and new markets. Before entering new regulated markets, we will evaluate the regulatory environment to ensure that we will have the opportunity to achieve an appropriate rate of return on our investment while maintaining our high standards for quality, reliability and compliance with environmental, health and safety and water quality standards.

Supplies

Our water and wastewater operations require an uninterrupted supply of chemicals, energy and fuel, as well as maintenance material and other critical inputs. Many of these inputs are subject to short-term price volatility. Short-term price volatility is partially mitigated through existing procurement contracts, current supplier continuity plans, the regulatory rate setting process and rate mechanisms.

Because of our geographic diversity, we maintain relationships with many chemical, equipment and service suppliers in the marketplace, and we do not rely on any single entity for a significant amount of our supplies. We also employ a strategic sourcing process intended to ensure reliability in supply and long-term cost effectiveness. As a result of this process and our strong relationships with suppliers, we are able to mitigate interruptions in the delivery of the products and services that are critical to our operations.

We typically have a combination of standby power generation or dual electric service feeds at key facilities, multiple water production facilities, emergency interconnections with adjacent water systems and finished water storage that keep our operations running in the event of a temporary loss of our primary energy supplies.

Regulation

Economic Regulation

Our Regulated Businesses are generally subject to extensive economic regulation by their respective PUCs. The term “economic regulation” is intended to indicate that these state PUCs regulate the economic aspects of service to the public but do not generally establish water quality standards, which are typically set by the EPA and/or state environmental authorities. State PUCs have broad authority to regulate many of the economic and service aspects of the utilities. For example, state PUCs often issue certificates of public convenience and necessity (or similar authorizations) that may be required for a company to provide service in specific areas. They also approve the rates and conditions under which service is provided and have extensive authority to establish rules and regulations under which the utilities operate. Specific authority might differ from state to state, but in most states PUCs approve rates, accounting treatments, long-term financing programs, significant capital expenditures and plant additions, transactions and relationships between the regulated subsidiary and affiliated entities, reorganizations, mergers and acquisitions. In many instances, approvals are required prior to the transaction. Regulatory policies not only vary from state to state, but can change over time as well. These policies will affect the timing as well as the extent of recovery of expenses and the realized return on invested capital. Our results of operations are significantly affected by rates authorized by the PUCs in the states in which we operate, and we are subject to risks and uncertainties associated with rate case delays or inadequate rate recovery.

Economic regulation of utilities involves many competing, and occasionally conflicting, public interests and policy goals. The primary responsibility of PUCs is to promote the overall public interest by balancing the interests of customers and the utility. Although the specific approach to economic regulation varies, certain general principles are consistent across the states in which our regulated subsidiaries operate. For example, based on certain legal and regulatory principles, utilities are entitled to recover, through rates charged to customers, prudent and reasonable operating costs as well as an opportunity to earn an appropriate return on and recovery of prudent, used and useful capital investment necessary to provide service to customers. PUCs will also generally accord a utility the right to serve specific areas and will also provide investor-owned utilities with limited protection from competition because the requirement of an investor-owned utility to operate pursuant to a certificate of public convenience and necessity (or similar authorizations) typically prevents other investor-owned utilities from competing with it in the authorized area. In return, the utility undertakes the obligation to provide reliable service without unreasonable discrimination to all customers within the authorized area.

11

Our operating revenue is typically determined by reference to a volumetric charge based on consumption and a base fee component set by a tariff approved by the PUC. The process to obtain approval for a change in rates generally involves filing a petition or “rate case” by the utility with the PUC on a periodic basis as determined by the need to recover capital expenditures, a reduction in operating revenues due to reduced consumption, increased operating costs or the utility determines that its current authorized return is not sufficient, given current market conditions, to provide a reasonable return on investment. A PUC may also initiate a rate proceeding or investigation if it believes a utility may be earning in excess of its authorized rate of return or other issues exist, which justify a review. PUCs may also impose other conditions on the content and timing of filings designed to affect rates. Rate cases often involve a lengthy administrative process that can be costly. The utility, the state PUC staff, consumer advocates, and other customers and interveners, who may participate in the process, generally submit testimony and supporting financial data from a twelve month period of time, known as the “test year.” State statutes and PUC rules and precedent usually determine whether the test year should be based on a historical period, a historical period adjusted for certain “known and measurable” changes or forecasted data. The majority of our states use a forecasted test year. The evidence is presented in public hearings held in connection with the rate case, which are economic and service quality fact-finding in nature, and are typically conducted in a trial-like setting before the PUC or an administrative law judge. During the process, the utility is required to provide PUC staff and interveners with all relevant information they may request concerning the utility’s operations, costs and investments. The decision of the PUC should be based on the evidence presented at the hearing.

State PUCs differ with regard to the types of expenses and investments that may be recovered in rates as well as with regard to the transparency of their rate-making processes and how they reach their final rate determinations. However, in evaluating a rate case, state PUCs typically focus on a number of areas, including, the amount and prudence of investment in facilities; operating and maintenance expenses and taxes; the appropriate cost of capital and equity return; revenues or consumption at current and expected levels; allocation of the revenue requirements among customer classes; service quality and issues raised by customers.

Failure of the PUCs to recognize reasonable and prudent operating and capital costs can result in the inability of the utility to earn the allowed return and can have a significant impact on the operations and earnings of our Regulated Businesses. Rate cases and other rate-related proceedings can take several months to over a year to complete. Therefore, there is frequently a delay, or regulatory lag, between the time one of our regulated subsidiaries makes a capital investment or incurs an operating cost increase and when those costs are reflected in rates. For instance, an unexpected increase in chemical costs or new capital investment that is not reflected in the most recently completed rate case will generally not begin to be recovered by the regulated subsidiary until the effective date of the subsequent rate case. Our rate case management program is guided by the goals of obtaining efficient recovery of costs of capital, recognition of declining consumption and appropriate recovery of utility operating and maintenance costs, including costs incurred for compliance with environmental regulations. The management team at each of our regulated subsidiaries anticipates the time required for the regulatory process and files rate cases with the goal of obtaining rates that reflect as closely as possible the cost of providing service at the time the rates become effective. Even if rates are sufficient, we face the risk that we will not achieve the rates of return on and of invested capital that are permitted by the PUC.

Our regulated subsidiaries work with legislatures and PUCs to mitigate the adverse impact of regulatory lag through the adoption of positive regulatory policies. These policies include, for example, infrastructure replacement surcharges that allow rates to change outside the context of a general rate proceeding to reflect, on a more timely basis, investments to replace infrastructure necessary to sustain high quality, reliable service. Currently, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, New York, New Jersey and Tennessee allow the use of infrastructure surcharges.

Forward-looking test year mechanisms allow us to earn, on a more current basis, our current or projected usage and costs and a rate of return on our current or projected invested capital. Some states have permitted use of a fully forecasted test year instead of historical data to set rates. Examples of these states include: Illinois, Kentucky, New York, Tennessee, California, Pennsylvania and Indiana. In all states in which we operate on a regulated basis, PUCs have allowed utilities to update historical data for certain “known and measurable” changes that occur for some limited period of time subsequent to the historical test year. This allows utilities to take into account more current costs or capital investments in the rate-setting process. The extent to which historical data can be updated will generally vary from state to state.

Surcharge mechanisms are also available in a number of states to reflect, outside of a general rate proceeding, changes in major operating expenses which may be beyond the utility’s control. For example, New Jersey, California, Virginia and Illinois have allowed surcharges for purchased water costs. California has allowed surcharges for power and certain other costs, and New York has allowed annual reconciliations for revenues and expenses such as power, fuel, chemicals and property taxes.

Certain states have approved consolidated rates or single-tariff pricing policies. Consolidated rates or single-tariff pricing is the use of a unified rate structure for multiple water systems that are owned and operated by a single utility, but may or may not be contiguous or physically interconnected. The single-tariff pricing structure may be used fully or partially in a state, based on costs that are determined on a state-wide or intra-state regional basis, thereby moderating the impact of periodic fluctuations in local costs while lowering administrative costs for us and our customers. For states that do not employ single-tariffs, we may have multiple general rate cases filed at any given point in time. Examples of states that have adopted a full or partial single-tariff pricing policy include:

12

Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Missouri, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois and Iowa. Therefore, of our seven largest states, six have some form of single-tariff pricing. Pennsylvania also permits a blending of water and wastewater rate structures, which results in single tariff pricing among water and wastewater systems.

Another mechanism to address issues of regulatory lag is the potential ability, in certain circumstances, to recover in rates a return on utility plant before it is in service, instead of capitalizing an allowance for funds used during construction. Examples of states that have allowed such recovery include Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Virginia, Illinois and California. In addition, some states, such as Indiana, allow the utility to seek pre-approval of certain capital projects and associated costs. In this pre-approval process, the PUC assesses the prudency of such projects.

In some states, the PUC has implemented mechanisms to enhance utility revenue stability in light of conservation initiatives, decreasing per capita consumption or other factors. Sometimes referred to as “decoupling,” these mechanisms, to some extent, separate recoverable revenues from volumes of water sold. For example, the state of California has decoupled revenues from water sold to help achieve the state initiative to reduce water usage by 20% by 2020. This progressive regulation enables utilities to encourage water efficiency, as revenues are not tied to sales. Similarly, New York has implemented a surcharge or credit based on the difference between actual net revenues and the revenues allowed in the most recent rate order.

The Company pursues these positive regulatory policies as part of our rate and revenue management program to enhance our ability to provide high quality, sustainable, cost effective service to customers, to facilitate efficient recovery of our costs and investments, and to ensure positive short-term liquidity and long-term profitability. The ability of the Company to seek regulatory treatment as described above does not guarantee that the state PUCs will accept the Company’s proposal in the context of a particular rate case, and these policies will reduce, but not eliminate, regulatory lag associated with traditional rate making processes. However, the Company strives to use these and other regulatory policies to address issues of regulatory lag wherever appropriate. It is also our strategy to expand their use in areas where they may not currently apply.

Environmental, Health and Safety and Water Quality Regulation

Our water and wastewater operations are subject to extensive United States federal, state and local laws and regulations, and in the case of our Canadian operations, Canadian laws and regulations governing the protection of the environment, health and safety, the quality of the water we deliver to our customers, water allocation rights and the manner in which we collect, treat, discharge and dispose of wastewater. We are also subject to certain regulations regarding fire protection services in the areas we serve. These regulations include the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act and other federal, state, local and Canadian laws and regulations governing the provision of water and wastewater services, particularly with respect to the quality of water we distribute. We also are subject to various federal, state, local and Canadian laws and regulations governing the storage of hazardous materials, the management and disposal of hazardous and solid wastes, discharges to air and water, the cleanup of contaminated sites, dam safety and other matters relating to the protection of the environment and health and safety. State PUCs also set conditions and standards for the water and wastewater services we deliver.

Environmental, health and safety and water quality regulations are complex and change frequently. The overall trend has been that they have become more stringent over time. As newer or stricter standards are introduced, our capital and operating costs could increase. We incur substantial costs associated with compliance with environmental, health and safety and water quality regulation to which our Regulated Businesses are subject. In the past, we have generally been able to recover costs associated with compliance related to environmental, health and safety standards, but this recovery is affected by regulatory lag and the corresponding uncertainties surrounding rate recovery.

We maintain an appropriate environmental policy including responsible business practices, compliance with environmental laws and regulations, effective use of natural resources, and stewardship of biodiversity. We believe that our operations are materially in compliance with, and in many cases surpass, minimum standards required by applicable environmental laws and regulations. Water samples from across our water systems are analyzed on a regular basis for material compliance with regulatory requirements. Across the Company, we conduct over one million water quality tests each year at our laboratory facilities and plant operations, including continuous on-line instrumentations such as monitoring turbidity levels, disinfectant residuals and adjustments to chemical treatment based on changes in incoming water. For 2013, we achieved a score of greater than 99% for drinking water compliance and according to the EPA statistics, American Water’s performance has been far better than the industry average over the last several years. In fact, in 2013, American Water was 20 times better than the industry average for compliance with drinking water quality standards (Maximum Contaminant Levels) and 150 times better for compliance with drinking water monitoring and reporting requirements.

We participate in the Partnership for Safe Water, the United States EPA’s voluntary program to meet more stringent goals for reducing microbial contaminants. With 68 of our 82 surface water plants receiving the program’s “Director” award, we account for approximately one-third of the plants receiving such awards nationwide. In addition, 63 American Water plants have received the “Five-Year Phase III” award, while 60 have been awarded the “Ten-Year Phase III” award.  Additionally, three plants received the inaugural “Fifteen-Year Phase III” award in 2013.

13

Safe Drinking Water Act

The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and regulations promulgated thereunder establish national quality standards for drinking water. The EPA has issued rules governing the levels of numerous naturally occurring and man-made chemical and microbial contaminants and radionuclides allowable in drinking water and continues to propose new rules. These rules also prescribe testing requirements for detecting regulated contaminants, the treatment systems which may be used for removing those contaminants and other requirements. Federal and state water quality requirements have become increasingly stringent, including increased water testing requirements, to reflect public health concerns. To date, the EPA has set standards for approximately 90 contaminants and indicators for drinking water.  Further, certain of our water systems are in the process of monitoring for 28 additional contaminants that are not currently regulated to help the EPA determine if any of them occur at high enough levels to warrant being regulated.  There are thousands of other chemical compounds that are not regulated, many of which are lacking a testing methodology, occurrence data, health effects information and/or treatment technology.

To effect the removal or inactivation of microbial organisms, the EPA has promulgated various rules to improve the disinfection and filtration of drinking water and to reduce consumers’ exposure to disinfectants and byproducts of the disinfection process. In January 2006, the EPA promulgated the Long-term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct Rule. In October 2006, the EPA finalized the Ground Water Rule, applicable to water systems providing water from underground sources. The EPA also revised the monitoring and reporting requirements of the existing Lead and Copper Rule in 2007 and Congress enacted the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act on January 4, 2011 regarding the use and introduction into commerce of lead pipes, plumbing fittings or fixtures, solder and flux. In 2012, the EPA finalized revisions to the Total Coliform Rule that were part of the mandate of a Federal Advisory Committee appointed to negotiate the changes. Most of the anticipated changes to the rule will not be effective until 2016. The EPA is actively considering regulations for a number of contaminants, including hexavalent chromium, fluoride, nitrosamines, perchlorate, some pharmaceuticals and certain volatile organic compounds, but we do not anticipate that any of these regulations will require implementation in 2014.

Although it is difficult to project the ultimate costs of complying with the above or other pending or future requirements, we do not expect current requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act to have a material impact on our operations or financial condition. In addition, capital expenditures and operating costs to comply with environmental mandates traditionally have been recognized by PUCs as appropriate for inclusion in establishing rates. As a result, we expect to fully recover the operating and capital costs resulting from these pending or future requirements.

Clean Water Act

The Federal Clean Water Act regulates discharges from drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities into lakes, rivers, streams and groundwater. In addition to requirements applicable to our wastewater collection systems, our operations require discharge permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit program established under the Clean Water Act. Pursuant to the NPDES program, the EPA or implementing states set maximum discharge limits for wastewater effluents and overflows from wastewater collection systems. We believe that we maintain the necessary permits and approvals for the discharges from our water and wastewater facilities. From time to time, discharge violations occur at our facilities, some of which result in fines. We do not expect any such violations or fines to have a material impact on our results of operations or financial condition.

Other Environmental, Health and Safety and Water Quality Matters

Our operations also involve the use, storage and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes. For example, our water and wastewater treatment facilities store and use chlorine and other chemicals which generate wastes that require proper handling and disposal under applicable environmental requirements. We also could incur remedial costs in connection with any contamination relating to our operations or facilities or our off-site disposal of wastes. Although we are not aware of any material cleanup or decontamination obligations, the discovery of contamination or the imposition of such obligations in the future could result in additional costs. Our facilities and operations also are subject to requirements under the United States Occupational Safety and Health Act and are subject to inspections thereunder. For further information, see “Business—Research and Development.”

Certain of our subsidiaries are involved in pending legal proceedings relating to environmental matters. These proceedings are described further in the section entitled “Item 3—Legal Proceedings.”

Competition

In our Regulated Businesses, we generally do not face direct competition in providing services in our existing markets because (i) we operate within those markets pursuant to certificates of public convenience and necessity (or similar authorizations) issued by state PUCs; and (ii) the high cost of constructing a new water and wastewater system in an existing market creates a barrier to market

14

entry. Our Regulated Businesses do face competition from governmental agencies, other investor-owned utilities, large industrial customers with the ability to provide their own water supply/treatment process and strategic buyers that are entering new markets and/or making strategic acquisitions. Our largest investor-owned competitors, when pursuing acquisitions, based on a comparison of operating revenues and population served, are Aqua America Inc., United Water (owned by Suez Environnement), American States Water Co. and California Water Services Group.

Condemnation

The potential exists that all or portions of our subsidiaries’ utility assets could be acquired by municipalities or other local government entities through one or more of the following methods:

The acquisition consideration related to such a transaction initiated by a local government may be determined consistent with applicable eminent domain law, or may be negotiated or fixed by appraisers as prescribed by the law of the state or in the particular franchise or charter. We believe our operating subsidiaries would be entitled to fair market value for any assets required to be sold, and we are of the opinion that fair market value would be in excess of the book value for such assets.

We are periodically subject to condemnation proceedings in the ordinary course of business. For example, condemnation threats have been made over the last several years with respect to the following systems:

We actively monitor condemnation activities that may affect us as soon as we become aware of them. We do not believe that condemnation poses a material threat to our ability to operate our Regulated Businesses.

Our Market-Based Operations

In addition to our Regulated Businesses, we operate the following lines of business in our Market-Based Operations. Of the lines of business outlined below; no single group within our Market-Based Operations generates in excess of 10% of our aggregate consolidated revenue.

Contract Operations Group

Our Contract Operations Group enters into public/private partnerships, including O&M and Design, Build and Operate (“DBO”) contracts for the provision of services to water and wastewater facilities for the United States military, municipalities, the food and beverage industry and other customers. We typically make no long-term capital investment under these contracts with municipalities and other customers; instead we perform our services for a fee. During the contract term, we may make limited short term capital investments under our contracts with the United States military and certain industrial customers. Our Contract Operations Group generated revenue of $212.6 million in 2013, representing 65.3% of revenue for our Market-Based Operations.

15

We are party to more than 70 contracts, varying in size and scope, across the United States and Canada, with contracts ranging in terms from one to 50 years. Included in these contracts are ten 50-year contracts, including the Hill Air Force Base contract that was awarded to us in January 2014, with the Department of Defense for the operation and maintenance of the water and wastewater systems on certain military bases. All of our contracts with the U.S. government may be terminated, in whole or in part, prior to the end of the 50-year term for convenience of the U.S. government or as a result of default or non-performance by the subsidiary performing the contract. In either event, pursuant to the standard terms of the U.S. government contract termination provisions, we would be entitled to recover allowable costs that we may have incurred under the contract, plus the contract profit margin on incurred costs. The contract price for each of these contracts is subject to redetermination two years after commencement of operations and every three years thereafter. Price redetermination is a contract mechanism to periodically adjust the service fee in the next period to reflect changes in contract obligations and anticipated market conditions.

On December 31, 2011, we completed the sale of our Applied Water Management, Inc. group (“AWM”). As noted above, this subsidiary is included in discontinued operations for all periods presented. Therefore, all amounts and statistics disclosed for the Contract Operations Group refer only to on-going operations of the Contract Operations Group.

Homeowner Services Group

Our Homeowner Services Group, through our Service Line Protection Program, provides services to domestic homeowners and smaller commercial establishments to protect against the cost of repairing broken or leaking water pipes and clogged or blocked sewer pipes inside and outside their accommodations. These repairs are not typically covered by homeowners’ insurance or by their water or sewer service provider.

Our LineSaver™ program involves partnering with municipalities to offer our protection programs to homeowners serviced by the municipalities. During 2012, we entered into a contract with the New York City Water Board (the “Board”), a corporate municipal instrumentality of the State of New York, to offer our LineSaver™ program to the Board’s approximately 650,000 homeowners throughout the city’s five boroughs.  As of December 31, 2013, our Homeowner Services Group has approximately 1.3 million customer contracts in 37 states, including the New York City customer contracts.

Terratec Environmental Ltd

Our Market-Based Operations also includes our biosolids management group, Terratec, which is located in Canada and provides environmentally sustainable management and disposal of biosolids and wastewater by-products.

Competition

We face competition in our Market-Based Operations from a number of service providers, including Veolia Environnement, American States Water, OMI and Southwest Water, particularly in the area of O&M contracting. Securing new O&M contracts is highly competitive, as these contracts are awarded based on a combination of customer relationships, service levels, competitive pricing, references and technical expertise. We also face competition in maintaining existing O&M contracts to which we are a party, as the municipal and industrial fixed term contracts frequently come up for renegotiation and are subject to an open bidding process.

Our Homeowner Services Group faces competition outside our existing footprint primarily from HomeServe USA and Utility Service Partners, Inc.

Research and Development

We established a formal research and development program in 1981 with the goal of improving water quality and operational effectiveness in all areas of our business. Our research and development personnel are located in New Jersey. In addition, our quality control and testing laboratory in Belleville, Illinois supports research through sophisticated testing and analysis. Since its inception, our research and development program has evolved to become a leading water-related research program, achieving advancements in the science of drinking water, including sophisticated water testing procedures and desalination technologies.

Since the formation of the EPA in 1970, we have collaborated with the agency to achieve effective environmental, health and safety and water quality regulation. This relationship has developed to include sharing of our research and national water quality monitoring data in addition to our treatment and distribution system optimization research. Our engagement with the EPA has helped us to achieve a leadership position for our company within the water and wastewater industry and has provided us with early insight into emerging regulatory issues and initiatives, thereby allowing us to anticipate and to accommodate our future compliance requirements.

16

In 2013, we spent $2.9 million on research and development compared to $2.8 million and $2.6 million spent in 2012 and 2011, respectively. Approximately one-quarter of our research budget is comprised of competitively awarded outside research grants. Such grants reduce the cost of research and allow collaboration with leading national and international researchers.

We believe that continued research and development activities are critical in providing quality and reliable service at reasonable rates, in maintaining our leadership position in the industry and will provide us with a competitive advantage as we seek additional business with new and existing customers.

Support Services

Our American Water Works Service Company subsidiary provides shared services and corporate governance that achieve economies of scale through central administration. These services are provided predominantly to our Regulated Businesses under the terms of contracts with these companies that have been approved by state PUCs, where necessary. These services, which are provided at cost, may include accounting, administration, business development, communications, corporate secretarial, education and training, engineering, financial, health and safety, human resources, information systems, internal audit, legal, operations, procurement, rates, security, risk management, water quality and research and development. These arrangements afford our operating companies professional and technical talent on an economical and timely basis. We also operate two national customer service centers, which are located in Alton, Illinois and Pensacola, Florida.

Our security department provides oversight and governance of physical and information security throughout our operations and is responsible for designing, implementing, monitoring and supporting active and effective physical and information security controls. We have complied with EPA regulations concerning vulnerability assessments and have made filings to the EPA as required. Vulnerability assessments are conducted regularly to evaluate the effectiveness of existing security controls and serve as the basis for further capital investment in security for the facility. Information security controls are deployed or integrated to prevent unauthorized access to company information systems, assure the continuity of business processes dependent upon automation, ensure the integrity of our data and support regulatory and legislative compliance requirements. While we do not make public comments on the details of our security programs, we are in contact with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to coordinate and improve the security of our water delivery systems and to safeguard our water supply.

Employee Matters

Approximately 50% of our workforce is represented by unions. We have 76 collective bargaining agreements in place with 18 different unions representing our unionized employees. We have three union contracts beyond expiration that affect approximately 200 employees, all of which are actively working under the old agreements. During 2014, 22 of our local union contracts will expire.

September 2010, we declared “impasse” in negotiations of our national benefits agreement with most of the labor unions representing employees in our Regulated Businesses. The prior agreement expired on July 31, 2010; however negotiations did not produce a new agreement. We implemented our last, best and final offer on January 1, 2011 in order to provide health care coverage for our employees in accordance with terms of the offer. The unions have challenged our right to implement our last, best, and final offer. In this regard, following the filing by the Utility Workers Union of America of an unfair labor practice charge, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a complaint against us in January 2012, claiming that we implemented the last, best and final offer without providing sufficient notice of the existence of a dispute with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, a state mediation agency, and several state departments of labor. We asserted that we did, in fact, provide sufficient notice.

On October 16, 2012, the NLRB Administrative Law Judge hearing the matter ruled that, although we did provide sufficient notification to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, we did not provide notice to state agencies, in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. The Administrative Law Judge ordered, among other things, that we cease and desist from implementing the terms of our last, best and final offer and make whole all affected employees for losses suffered as a result of our implementation of our last, best and final offer. The “make whole” order, if upheld on appeal, would require us to provide backpay plus interest, from January 1, 2011 through the date of the final determination. Based on current estimates and assumptions, we estimate the cash impact could be in the range of $3.0 to $3.5 million per year, with the total impact dependent on the length of time the issue remains unresolved. In November 2012, we filed an exception to the decision of the Administrative Law Judge in order to obtain a review by the full NRLB. We expect to hear from the NRLB in 2014.

Available Information

We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. We file or furnish annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). You may obtain a copy of any of these reports, free of charge, from the Investor Relations section of our website, http://www.amwater.com, shortly after we file or furnish the information to the SEC. Information contained on our website shall not be deemed incorporated into, or to be a part of, this report.

17

You may also obtain a copy of any of these reports directly from the SEC. You may read and copy any material we file or furnish with the SEC at their Public Reference Room, located at 100 F Street N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. The phone number for information about the operation of the Public Reference Room is 1-800-732-0330 (if you are calling from within the United States), or 202-551-8090. Because we electronically file our reports, you may also obtain this information from the SEC internet website at http://www.sec.gov. You can obtain additional contact information for the SEC on their website.

The American Water corporate governance guidelines and the charters for each of the standing committees of the board of directors, together with the American Water Code of Ethics and additional information regarding our corporate governance, are available on our website, http://www.amwater.com, and will be made available, without charge, in print to any shareholder who requests such documents from Investor Relations Department, American Water Works Company, Inc., 1025 Laurel Oak Road, Voorhees, NJ, 08043.

We operate in a market and regulatory environment that involves significant risks, many of which are beyond our control. In addition to the other information included or incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K, the following factors should be considered in evaluating our business and future prospects. Any of the following risks, either alone or taken together, could materially and adversely affect our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows and liquidity.

Risks Related to Our Industry and Business

Our utility operations are subject to extensive economic regulation. Decisions by state PUCs and other regulatory agencies can significantly affect our business and results of operations.

Our Regulated Businesses provide water and wastewater services to our customers through subsidiaries that are economically regulated by state PUCs. Economic regulation affects the rates we charge our customers and has a significant impact on our business and results of operations. Generally, the state PUCs authorize us to charge rates that they determine are sufficient to recover our prudently incurred operating expenses, to enable us to finance the addition of new, or the replacement of existing, water and wastewater infrastructure and to provide us the opportunity to earn what they determine to be an appropriate rate of return on our invested capital and a return of our invested capital.

Our ability to successfully implement our business plan and strategy depends upon the rates authorized by the various state PUCs. We periodically file rate increase applications with state PUCs. The ensuing administrative process may be lengthy and costly. We can provide no assurances that our rate increase requests will be approved, or that any approval will be given in a timely manner. Moreover, a PUC may not approve a rate request to an extent that is sufficient to cover our expenses, including purchased water and costs of chemicals, fuel and other commodities used in our operations; enable us to recover our investment; and provide us an opportunity to earn an appropriate rate of return on our investment, in which case our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and liquidity may be adversely affected. Even if rates are sufficient, we face the risk that we will not achieve the rates of return on our invested capital and a return of our invested capital to the extent permitted by state PUCs. This could occur if water usage is less than anticipated in establishing rates, as billings to customers are, to a considerable extent, based on usage in addition to a base rate, or if our investments or expenses prove to be higher than was estimated in establishing rates.

Our operations and the quality of water we supply are subject to extensive environmental, water quality and health and safety laws and regulations. Compliance with increasingly stringent laws and regulations could impact our operating costs; and violations of such laws and regulations could subject the Company to substantial liabilities and costs.

Our water and wastewater operations are subject to extensive United States federal, state and local laws and regulations and, in the case of our Canadian operations, Canadian laws and regulations that govern the protection of the environment, health and safety, the quality of the water we deliver to our customers, water allocation rights, and the manner in which we collect, treat, discharge and dispose of wastewater. These requirements include the United States Clean Water Act of 1972, which we refer to as the Clean Water Act, and the United States Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, which we refer to as the Safe Drinking Water Act, and similar state and Canadian laws and regulations. We are also required to obtain various environmental permits from regulatory agencies for our operations. For example, recently the Monterey County Health Department, Environmental Health Bureau (“MCHD”) notified our subsidiary, California American Water (“CAWC”) that the MCHD had received a complaint filed with the Department of Toxic Substance Control regarding arsenic levels and disposal locations of sludge generated from the company’s Ambler Park and Toro water treatment plants prior to May 2013. MCHD requested that CAWC provide MCHD with sludge disposal records, analytical results and supporting documentation related to this matter. Through two separate letters, CAWC submitted the requested documentation and information to MCHD and advised MCHD that, based on the analysis performed, it appears that some of the residual wastes from the two plants, as well as CAWC’s Ryan Ranch water treatment plant, may have exceeded California hazardous waste soluble threshold limit concentration requirements and, therefore, should not have not been disposed of at the non-hazardous disposal facilities to which they were transported. CAWC further advised MCHD that, in light of the findings, CAWC modified its

18

procedures to insure that wastes sent for disposal are properly characterized and managed. CAWC similarly reported to the Sacramento County Department of Environmental Management that it may have improperly disposed of arsenic residuals from its Isleton treatment plant before July 2013. By letter dated November 6, 2013, the Monterey County District Attorney advised CAWC that it had received a report from the MCHD that CAWC had transported and disposed such hazardous wastes in violation of applicable provisions of the California Health and Safety Code and the California Business and Professions Code which subject violators to civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation and up to$2,500 per violation, respectively. The District Attorney invited CAWC to arrange a meeting to discuss the matter prior to taking any enforcement action, and a meeting was held on November 20, 2013. The District Attorney has not indicated whether enforcement action will be taken. Similarly, CAWC continues to discuss the matter relating to the Isleton Treatment Plant with the Sacramento County Department of Environmental Management, which has not indicated whether enforcement action will be taken. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

In addition, state PUCs also set conditions and standards for the water and wastewater services we deliver. If we deliver water or wastewater services to our customers that do not comply with regulatory standards, or otherwise violate environmental laws, regulations or permits, or other health and safety and water quality regulations, we could incur substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions or costs, as well as damage to our reputation. In the most serious cases, regulators could force us to discontinue operations and sell our operating assets to another utility or to a municipality. Given the nature of our business which, in part, involves supplying water for human consumption, any potential non-compliance with, or violation of, environmental, water quality and health and safety laws or regulations would likely pose a more significant risk to us than to a company not similarly involved in the water and wastewater industry.

We incur substantial operating and capital costs on an ongoing basis to comply with environmental, water quality and health and safety laws and regulations. These laws and regulations, and their enforcement, generally have become more stringent over time, and new or stricter requirements could increase our costs. Although we may seek to recover ongoing compliance costs in our rates, there can be no guarantee that the various state PUCs or similar regulatory bodies that govern our Regulated Businesses would approve rate increases to recover such costs or that such costs will not materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and liquidity.

We may also incur liabilities if, under environmental laws and regulations, we are required to investigate and clean up environmental contamination at our properties, including potential spills of hazardous chemicals, such as chlorine, which we use to treat water, or at off-site locations where we have disposed of waste or caused an adverse environmental impact. The discovery of previously unknown conditions, or the imposition of cleanup obligations in the future, could result in significant costs and could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and liquidity. Such remediation costs may not be covered by insurance and may make it difficult for us to secure insurance at acceptable rates in the future.

Limitations on availability of water supplies or restrictions on our use of water supplies as a result of government regulation or action may adversely affect our access to sources of water, our ability to supply water to customers or the demand for our water services.

Our ability to meet the existing and future demand of our customers depends on the availability of an adequate supply of water. As a general rule, sources of public water supply, including rivers, lakes, streams and groundwater aquifers, are held in the public trust and are not owned by private interests. As a result, we typically do not own the water that we use in our operations, and the availability of our water supply is established through allocation rights (determined by legislation or court decisions) and passing-flow requirements set by governmental entities. Passing-flow requirements set minimum volumes of water that must pass through specified water sources, such as rivers and streams, in order to maintain environmental habitats and meet water allocation rights of downstream users. Allocation rights are imposed to ensure sustainability of major water sources and passing-flow requirements are most often imposed on source waters from smaller rivers, lakes and streams. These requirements, which can change from time to time, may adversely impact our water supply. Supply issues, such as drought, overuse of sources of water, the protection of threatened species or habitats, or other factors may limit the availability of ground and surface water. For example, in our Monterey County, California operations, we are seeking to augment our sources of water supply, principally to comply with an October 20, 2009 order of the California State Water Resources Control Board (the “2009 Order”) that our subsidiary, CAWC, significantly decrease its diversion from the Carmel River in accordance with a reduction schedule running through December 31, 2016 (the "2016 Deadline"). We are also required to augment our Monterey County sources of water supply to comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. We have implemented conservation rates and other programs to address demand and are utilizing aquifer storage and recovery facilities to store winter water for summer use. We were hopeful that we could address the water supply issues in a meaningful way through a Regional Desalination Project (the “Project”) that was to be implemented through a Water Purchase Agreement and ancillary agreements (the “Agreements”) among the Marina Coast Water District (“MCWD”), the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (“MCWRA”) and CAWC. However, the Project was subject to considerable delay and disputes among the parties. On July 7, 2011, MCWRA advised MCWD and CAWC that the Agreements were void, and on January 17, 2012, CAWC publicly announced that it had withdrawn support of the Project. Finally, on July 12, 2012, the California Public Utility Commission (“CPUC”) closed the proceedings relating to the Project. Nevertheless, disputes among the parties with respect to the Project continued thereafter, and, while CAWC and MCWRA have entered into a settlement agreement to resolve their disputes, the terms of

19

the settlement agreement are largely contingent on approval by the CPUC of the settlement agreement, as well as CAWC's recovery through rates of its provision to MCWRA of $1.9 million in loan forgiveness and up to approximately $1.5 million in additional payments. Moreover CAWC’s disputes with MCWD remain unresolved and subject to ongoing litigation, although CAWC and MCWD currently are subject to an agreement with respect to certain claims by CAWC against MCWD that tolls the applicable statute of limitations and a deadline for commencement by CAWC of litigation relating to certain of its claims against MCWD. Following its withdrawal of support for the Project, CAWC filed an application with the CPUC on April 23, 2012 for approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (the “New Project”). The New Project involves construction of a desalination plant and related facilities, all to be owned by CAWC. In addition, the New Project may encompass CAWC’s purchase of water from the proposed Monterey Peninsula Groundwater Replenishment Project, a joint project between the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (“MPWMD”). The application also seeks CPUC approval of ratemaking mechanisms designed to enable CAWC to recover its costs related to construction and operation of the New Project, including funding for principal and interest on a State Revolving Fund Loan that CAWC believes it is eligible to receive. Under a July 2012 settlement agreement among CAWC and 15 other parties that have intervened in the CPUC proceedings with respect to the New Project, including several Monterey County government entities the parties have agreed to, among other things, cost caps for the desalination plant and certain pipeline facilities to be constructed by CAWC aggregating $295.7 million to $338.4 million, depending on the size of the desalination plant ultimately approved by the CPUC. In a separate settlement agreement among most of the same parties, the participating parties agreed on sizing of the desalination plant at 9.6 million gallons per day, if the GWR Project does not supply water to CAWC, and, if the GWR Project supplies water to CAWC, either 6.4 million gallons per day or 6.9 million gallons per day depending on discrete capacities of GWR Project water. The settlement agreements are subject to the approval of the CPUC and will not take effect unless the CPUC determines they are reasonable within the law and the public interest, and until the CPUC certifies an environmental impact report for the proposed New Project, currently scheduled for the first quarter of 2015. CAWC’s ability to move forward on the New Project will be subject to extensive administrative review, including public hearings before the CPUC and testimony from intervening parties. In addition, a large number of federal, state and local approvals must also be obtained. moreover, due to delays related to, among other things, determination of the need for government approval to proceed with certain testing required to enable the preparation of the environmental impact report, CAWC currently estimates that the earliest date by which the New Project could be completed is mid to late 2018. Because the projected completion date is beyond the 2016 Deadline, CAWC has commenced discussions with the State Water Resources Control Board and other government representatives to extend the 2016 Deadline. While CAWC believes the discussions have been constructive, we cannot assure that that the 2016 Deadline will be extended. We cannot predict the ultimate effect of the events described above on CAWC’s efforts to secure alternative sources of water, or on CAWC’s exposure to liabilities as a result of its ongoing disputes relating to the Project or its inability to meet the 2016 Deadline under the 2006 Order. If CAWC is unable to secure an alternative source of water, or if other adverse consequences result from the events described above, our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be adversely affected.

Government restrictions on water use may also result in decreased use of water services, even if our water supplies are sufficient to serve our customers, which may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Seasonal drought conditions that would impact our water services are possible across all of our service areas. If a regional drought were to occur, governmental restrictions may be imposed on all systems within a region independent of the supply adequacy of any individual system.  For example, as a result of the reduced rain fall and overall dry conditions throughout the state of California, CAWC has been closely monitoring its owned and purchased water supplies.  On January 17, 2014, the California Governor issued a drought declaration asking Californians to reduce their water use by 20%.  At this time, CAWC is awaiting determination by CPUC staff on an advice letter CAWC submitted that would clarify the water conservation and rationing plan for certain districts in CAWC's tariffs, including a conservation and rationing mechanism for the Sacramento district.  The CPUC suspended the effective date of the advice letter until after CAWC holds a public meeting for the Sacramento district.  During a February 2014 meeting between the CPUC staff and representatives from several water utilities, including CAWC, participants noted that the drought may result in utilities opening the Catastrophic Event Memorandum Accounts in all districts, which affords the opportunity to seek recovery of extraordinary expenditures related to the drought. Following drought conditions, water demand may not return to pre-drought levels even after restrictions are lifted. Decreased use of water services resulting from any of these events may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Service disruptions caused by severe weather conditions may disrupt our operations and economic conditions may reduce the demand for water services, either of which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Service interruptions due to severe weather events are possible across all our service areas. These include winter storms and freezing conditions, high wind conditions, tornados, earthquakes, coastal and intercoastal floods or high water conditions, including those in or near designated flood plains, hurricanes and severe electrical storms. These weather events may affect the condition or operability of our facilities, limiting or preventing us from delivering water or wastewater services to our customers, or requiring us to make substantial capital expenditures to repair any damage. In the third quarter of 2011, our New Jersey and Pennsylvania subsidiaries experienced service interruptions in certain of our operating areas and, in some cases, a loss in customers as a result of the extreme weather, including Hurricane Irene and other severe storms in the Northeast. In October 2012, our east coast subsidiaries were affected by Hurricane Sandy. The most significant impact to our business was caused by the widespread power outages caused by the storm’s heavy winds, rain and snow.

20

In addition, adverse economic conditions can cause our customers, particularly industrial customers, to curtail operations. A curtailment of operations by an industrial customer would typically result in reduced water usage. In more severe circumstances, the decline in usage could be permanent. Any decrease in demand resulting from difficult economic conditions could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Regulatory and environmental risks associated with the collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater may impose significant costs.

The wastewater collection, treatment and disposal operations of our subsidiaries are subject to substantial regulation and involve significant environmental risks. If collection or treatment systems fail, overflow, or do not operate properly, untreated wastewater or other contaminants could spill onto nearby properties or into nearby streams and rivers, causing damage to persons or property, injury to aquatic life and economic damages, which may not be recoverable in rates. This risk is most acute during periods of substantial rainfall or flooding, which are the main causes of sewer overflow and system failure. Liabilities resulting from such damage could adversely and materially affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. Moreover, if we are deemed liable for any damage caused by overflow, our losses might not be covered by insurance, and such losses may make it difficult for us to secure insurance at acceptable rates in the future.

The current regulatory rate setting structure may result in a significant delay, or “regulatory lag,” from the time that we invest in infrastructure improvements, incur increased operating expenses or experience declining water usage, to the time at which we can address these events through the rate case application process; our inability to minimize regulatory lag could adversely affect our business.

There is typically a delay, or regulatory lag, between the time one of our regulated subsidiaries makes a capital investment or incurs an operating expense increase and the time when those costs are reflected in rates. In addition, billings permitted by state PUCs typically are, to a considerable extent, based on the volume of water usage in addition to a minimum base rate. Thus, we may experience a regulatory lag between the time our revenues are affected by declining usage and the time we are able to adjust the rate per gallon of usage to address declining usage. Our inability to reduce this regulatory lag could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and liquidity.

The Company endeavors to reduce regulatory lag by pursuing positive regulatory policies. For example, seven state PUCs permit rates to be adjusted outside of the rate case application process through surcharges that address certain capital investments, such as replacement of aging infrastructure. These surcharges are adjusted periodically based on factors such as project completion or future budgeted expenditures, and specific surcharges are eliminated once the related capital investment is incorporated in new PUC approved rates. Other examples of such programs include states that allow us to increase rates for certain cost increases that are beyond the utility’s control, such as purchased water costs or property or other taxes, or power, conservation, chemical or other expenditures. These surcharge mechanisms enable us to adjust rates closer to the time costs have been incurred than would be the case under the rate case application process. While these programs have been a positive development and we continue to work for expansion of programs to mitigate regulatory lag, some state PUCs have not approved such programs and there is no assurance that any PUC will adopt any of them in the future or that existing programs will continue in their current form, or at all, in the future. Furthermore, no state has adopted surcharge programs that include all elements of cost that may change between general rate proceedings. Although we intend to continue our efforts to expand state PUC approval of surcharges to address issues of regulatory lag, our efforts may not be successful, in which case our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and liquidity may be adversely affected.

Our Regulated Businesses require significant capital expenditures and may suffer if we fail to secure appropriate funding to make investments, or if we experience delays in completing major capital expenditure projects.

The water and wastewater utility business is very capital intensive. We invest significant amounts of capital to add, replace and maintain property, plant and equipment. In 2013, we invested $950 million in net Company-funded capital improvements. The level of capital expenditures necessary to maintain the integrity of our systems could increase in the future. We fund capital improvement projects using cash generated from operations, borrowings under our revolving credit facility and commercial paper programs and issuances of long-term debt and equity securities. We can provide no assurance that we will be able to access the debt and equity capital markets on favorable terms or at all.

21

In addition, we could be limited in our ability to both pursue growth and pay dividends in line with our dividend policy.  In particular, the use of cash to pay dividends could affect our ability to make large acquisitions or pursue other growth opportunities that require cash investments in amounts greater than our available cash and external financing resources. In order to fund construction expenditures, acquisitions (including tuck-in acquisitions), principal and interest payments on our indebtedness, and dividends at the level currently anticipated under our dividend policy, we expect that we will need additional financing. However, we intend to retain sufficient cash from operating activities after the distribution of dividends to fund a portion of our capital expenditures.

If we do not obtain sufficient capital, we may be unable to maintain our existing property, plant and equipment, realize our capital investment strategies, meet our growth targets and successfully expand the rate base upon which we are able to earn future returns on our investment and a return of our investment. Even if we have adequate resources to make required capital expenditures, we face the additional risk that we will not complete our major capital expenditures on time, as a result of construction delays or other obstacles. Each of these outcomes could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Weather conditions could adversely affect demand for our water service and our revenues.

Demand for our water during the warmer months is generally greater than during cooler months due primarily to additional requirements for water in connection with irrigation systems, swimming pools, cooling systems and other outside water use. Throughout the year, and particularly during typically warmer months, demand tends to vary with temperature, rainfall levels and rainfall frequency. In the event that temperatures during the typically warmer months are cooler than normal, or if there is more rainfall than normal, the demand for our water may decrease and adversely affect our revenues.

Market conditions may unfavorably impact the value of benefit plan assets and liabilities, as well as assumptions related to the benefit plans, which may require us to provide significant additional funding.

The performance of the capital markets affects the values of the assets that are held in trust to satisfy significant future obligations under our pension and postretirement benefit plans. These assets are subject to market fluctuations, which may cause investment returns to fall below our projected return rates. A decline in the market value of the pension and postretirement benefit plan assets can increase the funding requirements under our pension and postretirement benefit plans if future returns on these assets are insufficient to offset the decline in value. Additionally, the Company’s pension and postretirement benefit plan liabilities are sensitive to changes in interest rates. If interest rates decrease, our liabilities would increase, potentially increasing benefit expense and funding requirements. Further, changes in demographics, such as increases in life expectancy assumptions may also increase the funding requirements of our obligations related to the pension and other postretirement benefit plans. Future increases in pension and other postretirement costs as a result of reduced plan assets may not be fully recoverable in rates, and our results of operations and financial position could be negatively affected.

In addition, market factors can affect assumptions we use in determining funding requirements with respect to our pension and postretirement plans. For example, a relatively modest change in our assumptions regarding discount rates can materially affect our calculation of funding requirements. To the extent that market data compels us to reduce the discount rate used in our assumptions, our benefit obligations could be materially increased, which could adversely affect our financial position and results of operations.

Our indebtedness could affect our business adversely and limit our ability to plan for or respond to changes in our business, and we may be unable to generate sufficient cash flows to satisfy our liquidity needs.

As of December 31, 2013, our indebtedness (including preferred stock with mandatory redemption requirements) was $5,874.5 million, and our working capital (defined as current assets less current liabilities) was in a deficit position. Our indebtedness could have important consequences, including:

22

In order to meet our capital expenditure needs, we may be required to make additional borrowings under our revolving credit facility or issue new debt securities in the capital markets. Moreover, additional borrowings may be required to refinance outstanding indebtedness. Debt maturities and sinking fund payments in 2014 and 2015 are $14.2 million and $60.7 million, respectively. We can provide no assurances that we will be able to access the debt capital markets on favorable terms, if at all. If new debt is added to our current debt levels, the related risks we now face could intensify, limiting our ability to refinance existing debt on favorable terms.

We will depend primarily on operations to fund our expenses and to pay the principal and interest on our outstanding debt. Therefore, our ability to pay our expenses and satisfy our debt service obligations depends on our future performance, which will be affected by financial, business, economic, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors beyond our control. If we do not have sufficient cash flows to pay the principal and interest on our outstanding debt, we may be required to refinance all or part of our existing debt, sell assets, borrow additional funds or sell additional equity. In addition, if our business does not generate sufficient cash flows from operations, or if we are unable to incur indebtedness sufficient to enable us to fund our liquidity needs, we may be unable to plan for or respond to changes in our business, which could cause our operating results and prospects to be affected adversely.

Contamination of our sources of water could result in service interruptions and human exposure to hazardous substances and subject our subsidiaries to civil or criminal enforcement actions, private litigation and cleanup obligations.

Our water supplies into our treatment plants or the supplies then delivered into our distribution system are subject to contamination, including contamination from naturally-occurring compounds, chemicals in groundwater systems, pollution resulting from man-made sources, such as perchlorate and methyl tertiary butyl ether, and possible terrorist attacks. If one of our water supplies is contaminated, depending on the nature of the contamination, we may have to either 1) interrupt the use of that water supply and locate an adequate supply of water from another water source, including, in some cases, through the purchase of water from a third-party supplier, or 2) continue the water supply under a “Do Not Use” protective order that allows for continuation of basic sanitation and essential fire protection. If service is disrupted and we are unable to access a substitute water supply in a cost-effective manner, our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, liquidity and reputation may be adversely affected.  In addition, we may incur significant costs in order to treat the contaminated source through expansion of our current treatment facilities, or development of new treatment methods. We might not be able to recover costs associated with treating or decontaminating water supplies through rates, or recovery of these costs may not occur in a timely manner. Moreover, we could be held liable for environmental damage as well as damages arising from toxic tort or other lawsuits, criminal enforcement actions, contractual obligations or other consequences arising out of human exposure to hazardous substances in our drinking water supplies.

In this regard, on January 9, 2014, a chemical storage tank owned by Freedom Industries, Inc. leaked two substances used for processing coal (4-methylcyclohexane methanol, or MCHM, and PPH, a mix of polyglocol ethers), into the Elk River near the West Virginia-American Water Company (“WVAWC”) treatment plant intake in Charleston, West Virginia. After having been alerted to the leak of MCHM by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) (Freedom Industries first notified DEP on January 21, 2014 that PPH was also leaked), WVAWC took immediate steps to gather more information about MCHM, augment its treatment process as a precaution, and begin consultations with federal, state, and local public health officials.  As soon as possible after it was determined that the augmented treatment process would not fully remove the MCHM, a joint decision was reached in consultation with the West Virginia Bureau for Public Health to  issue a “Do Not Use” order to approximately 300,000 people in parts of nine West Virginia counties. The order addressed the use of water for drinking, cooking, washing, and bathing, but did not affect continued use of water for sanitation and fire protection. Over the next several days, WVAWC and an interagency team of state and federal officials engaged in extensive sampling and testing to determine if levels of MCHM were below one part per million (1 ppm), a level that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicated would be protective of public health. Beginning on January 13, 2014, based on the results of the continued testing, the Do Not Use order was lifted in stages to help ensure the water system was not overwhelmed by excessive demand, which could have caused additional water quality and service issues. By January 18, 2014, none of WVAWC’s customers were subject to the Do Not Use order, although CDC guidance suggesting that pregnant women avoid consuming the water until the chemicals are at a non-detectable level remained in place.  In addition, based on re-analysis of previously saved samples, PPH was no longer detected at any sampling locations as of January 18, 2014.  On February 21, 2014, WVAWC announced that all points of testing throughout its water distribution system indicated that levels of MCHM are below 10 parts per billion (10 ppb). The interagency team established 10 ppb as the “non-detect” level of MCHM in the water distribution system based on the measurement capabilities of the multiple laboratories used. WVAWC is continuing sampling and testing in an effort to pinpoint its flushing activities and address odor issues.

WVAWC has and may continue to incur significant costs in responding to this incident and may not be able to recover such costs through rates or from insurers. Even if recovery is possible, it may not occur in a timely manner. Moreover, government investigations relating to the Freedom Industries spill have been initiated, state and federal legislatures have begun considering changes to existing laws, and more than 50 lawsuits have been filed to date against WVAWC and, in a few cases, the Company or other Company affiliates. Freedom Industries (which is now in bankruptcy) is also named in many of the complaints.  In addition, a purported stockholder has made a demand that the Company's board of directors take action to remedy alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by all of the members of the board and another Company officer in connection with this matter, which is being referred to the board of directors for its consideration.   While the Company and WVAWC believe that WVAWC has responded appropriately to, and

23

has no responsibility for, the Freedom Industries spill, and the Company and WVAWC believe they and other Company affiliates have valid, meritorius defenses to the lawsuits, WVAWC will incur substantial defense costs. Moreover, an adverse outcome in one or more of the lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, liquidity and reputation. WVAWC and the Company are unable to predict the outcome of the ongoing government investigations or any legislative initiatives that might impact water utility operations.  

Work stoppages and other labor relations matters could adversely affect our results of operations.

Approximately 50% of our workforce is represented by unions. We have 76 collective bargaining agreements in place with 18 different unions representing our unionized employees. We might not be able to renegotiate labor contracts on terms that are fair to us. Any negotiations or dispute resolution processes undertaken in connection with our labor contracts could be delayed or affected by labor actions or work stoppages. Labor actions, work stoppages or the threat of work stoppages, and our failure to obtain favorable labor contract terms during renegotiations may adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and liquidity. In September 2010, we declared “impasse” in negotiations of our national benefits agreement with most of the labor unions representing employees in our Regulated Businesses. The prior agreement expired on July 31, 2010; however, negotiations did not produce a new agreement. We implemented our “last, best and final” offer on January 1, 2011 in order to provide health care coverage for our employees in accordance with the terms of the offer. The unions have challenged our right to implement our last, best, and final offer. In this regard, following the filing by the Utility Workers Union of America of an unfair labor practice charge, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a complaint against us in January 2012, claiming that we implemented the last, best and final offer without providing sufficient notice of the existence of a dispute with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, a state mediation agency, and several state departments of labor. We have asserted that we did, in fact, provide sufficient notice. On October 16, 2012, the NLRB Administrative Law Judge hearing the matter ruled that, although we did provide sufficient notification to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, we did not provide notice to state agencies, in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. The Administrative Law Judge ordered, among other things, that we cease and desist from implementing the terms of our last, best and final offer and make whole all affected employees for losses suffered as a result of our implementation of our last, best and final offer. The “make whole” order, if upheld on appeal, would require us to provide backpay plus interest, from January 1, 2011 through the date of the final determination by the NLRB. Based on current estimates and assumptions, we estimate the cash impact could be in the range of $3.5 to $4.5 million per year, with the total impact dependent on the length of time the issue remains unresolved. In November 2012, we filed an exception to the decision of the Administrative Law Judge in order to obtain a review by the full NLRB. Although no work stoppages have occurred with respect to the expired contracts described above, we cannot provide assurance that a work stoppage or strike will not occur. While we have developed contingency plans to be implemented as necessary if a work stoppage or strike does occur, we cannot assure that a strike or work stoppage would not have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

The failure of, or the requirement to repair, upgrade or dismantle, any of our dams may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

We own 87 dams. A failure of any of those dams could result in personal injury and downstream property damage for which we may be liable. The failure of a dam would also adversely affect our ability to supply water in sufficient quantities to our customers and could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Any losses or liabilities incurred due to a failure of one of our dams might not be covered by insurance policies or be recoverable in rates, and such losses may make it difficult for us to secure insurance at acceptable rates in the future.

We also are required from time to time to decommission, repair or upgrade the dams that we own. The cost of such repairs can be and has been material. We might not be able to recover such costs through rates. The inability to recover these higher costs or delayed recovery of the costs as a result of regulatory lag can affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and liquidity. The federal and state agencies that regulate our operations may adopt rules and regulations requiring us to dismantle our dams.

Any failure of our network of water and wastewater pipes and water reservoirs could result in losses and damages that may affect our financial condition and reputation.

Our operating subsidiaries distribute water and collect wastewater through an extensive network of pipes and storage systems located across the United States. A failure of major pipes or reservoirs could result in injuries and property damage for which we may be liable. The failure of major pipes and reservoirs may also result in the need to shut down some facilities or parts of our network in order to conduct repairs. Such failures and shutdowns may limit our ability to supply water in sufficient quantities to our customers and to meet the water and wastewater delivery requirements prescribed by government regulators, including state PUCs with jurisdiction over our operations, and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, liquidity and reputation. Any business interruption or other losses might not be covered by insurance policies or be recoverable in rates, and such losses may make it difficult for us to secure insurance at acceptable rates in the future. Moreover, to the extent such business interruptions or other losses are not covered by insurance, they may not be recovered through rate adjustments.

24

Our inability to access the capital or financial markets could affect our ability to meet our liquidity needs at reasonable cost and our ability to meet long-term commitments, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

In addition to cash from operations, we rely on our revolving credit facility, commercial paper programs, and the capital markets to satisfy our liquidity needs. In this regard, our principal external source of liquidity is our revolving credit facility. We regularly use our commercial paper program as a principal source of short-term borrowing due to the generally more attractive rates we obtain in the commercial paper market. However, disruptions in the capital markets could limit our ability to access capital. While our credit facility lending banks have met all of their obligations, disruptions in the credit markets, changes in our credit ratings, or deterioration of the banking industry’s financial condition could discourage or prevent lenders from meeting their existing lending commitments, extending the terms of such commitments, or agreeing to new commitments.  In order to meet our short-term liquidity needs, particularly if borrowings through the commercial paper market are unavailable, we maintain a $1.25 billion revolving credit facility. Under the terms of our revolving credit facility, commitments, which total $1.18 billion, mature in October 2018. Our inability to maintain, renew or replace these commitments could materially increase our cost of capital and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

American Water Capital Corp. (“AWCC”), our financing subsidiary, had no outstanding borrowings under the revolving credit facility and $41.6 million of outstanding letters of credit under the credit facility as of February 21, 2014. AWCC had $629.9 million of outstanding commercial paper as of February 21, 2014. We cannot assure that our lenders will meet their existing commitments or that we will be able to access the commercial paper or loan markets in the future on terms acceptable to us or at all.

Longer term disruptions in the capital and credit markets as a result of uncertainty, reduced financing alternatives, or failures of significant financial institutions could adversely affect our access to the liquidity needed for our business. Any significant disruption in the capital and credit markets, or financial institution failures could require us to take measures to conserve cash until the market stabilizes or until alternative financing can be arranged. Such measures could include deferring capital expenditures, reducing or suspending dividend payments, and reducing other discretionary expenditures.

Any impediments to our access to the capital markets, failure of our lenders to meet their commitments, increased interest expense, or cash conservation measures resulting from financial market disruptions or otherwise could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, and liquidity.

Changes in laws and regulations over which we have no control and changes in certain agreements can significantly affect our business and results of operations.

New legislation, regulations, government policies or court decisions can materially affect our operations. The individuals who serve as regulators are elected or are political appointees. Therefore, elections which result in a change of political administration or new appointments may also result in changes in the individuals who serve as regulators and the policies of the regulatory agencies that they serve. New laws or regulations, new interpretations of existing laws or regulations, changes in agency policy, including those made in response to shifts in public opinion, or conditions imposed during the regulatory hearing process may affect our business in a number of ways that could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and liquidity, including the following:

25

An important part of our growth strategy is the acquisition of water and wastewater systems. Any future acquisitions we undertake may involve risks. Further, competition for acquisition opportunities from other regulated utilities, governmental entities, and strategic and financial buyers may hinder our ability to grow our business.

An important element of our growth strategy is the acquisition and integration of water and wastewater systems in order to broaden our current, and move into new, service areas. We will not be able to acquire other businesses if we cannot identify suitable acquisition opportunities or reach mutually agreeable terms with acquisition candidates. It is our intent, when practical, to integrate any businesses we acquire with our existing operations. The negotiation of potential acquisitions as well as the integration of acquired businesses could require us to incur significant costs and cause diversion of our management’s time and resources. Future acquisitions by us could result in:

Some or all of these items could have a material adverse effect on our business and our ability to finance our business, pay dividends and to comply with regulatory requirements. The businesses we acquire in the future may not achieve sales and profitability that would justify our investment, and any difficulties we encounter in the integration process, including in the integration of processes necessary for internal control and financial reporting, could interfere with our operations, reduce our operating margins and adversely affect our internal controls. We compete with governmental entities, other regulated utilities, and strategic and financial buyers, for acquisition opportunities. If consolidation becomes more prevalent in the water and wastewater industries and competition for acquisitions increases, the prices for suitable acquisition candidates may increase to unacceptable levels and limit our ability to grow through acquisitions. In addition, our competitors may impede our growth by purchasing water utilities near our existing operations, thereby preventing us from acquiring them. Competing governmental entities, utilities, environmental or social activist groups, and strategic and financial buyers have challenged, and may in the future challenge, our efforts to acquire new companies and/or service territories. Our growth could be hindered if we are not able to compete effectively for new companies and/or service territories with other companies or strategic and financial buyers that have lower costs of operations.  Any of these risks may adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We have recorded a significant amount of goodwill, and we may never realize the full value of our intangible assets, causing us to record impairments that may negatively affect our results of operations.

Our total assets include substantial goodwill. At December 31, 2013, our goodwill totaled $1,207.8 million. The goodwill is primarily associated with the acquisition of American Water by an affiliate of our previous owner in 2003 and the acquisition of E’Town Corporation by a predecessor to our previous owner in 2001. Goodwill represents the excess of the purchase price the purchaser paid over the fair value of the net tangible and intangible assets acquired. Goodwill is recorded at fair value on the date of an acquisition and is reviewed annually or more frequently if changes in circumstances indicate the carrying value may not be recoverable. As required by the applicable accounting rules, we have taken significant non-cash charges to operating results for goodwill impairments in the past. In the aggregate, goodwill impairment charges including those recognized in our discontinued operations taken in each year from 2006 through 2009 totaled approximately $1.93 billion and reduced net income by approximately $1.91 billion.

We may be required to recognize an impairment of goodwill in the future due to market conditions or other factors related to our performance. These market events could include a decline over a period of time of our stock price, a decline over a period of time in

26

valuation multiples of comparable water utilities, the lack of an increase in our market price consistent with our peer companies, or decreases in control premiums. A decline in the forecasted results in our business plan, such as changes in rate case results or capital investment budgets or changes in our interest rates, could also result in an impairment charge. Recognition of impairments of a significant portion of goodwill would negatively affect our reported results of operations and total capitalization, the effect of which could be material and could make it more difficult to maintain our credit ratings, secure financing on attractive terms, maintain compliance with debt covenants and meet expectations of our regulators.

The assets of our Regulated Businesses are subject to condemnation through eminent domain.

Municipalities and other government subdivisions have historically been involved in the provision of water and wastewater services in the United States, and organized efforts may arise from time to time in one or more of the service areas in which our Regulated Businesses operate to convert our assets to public ownership and operation through exercise of the governmental power of eminent domain. Should a municipality or other government subdivision seek to acquire our assets through eminent domain, we may resist the acquisition. For example, condemnation threats have been made over the last several years with respect to the following systems:

Contesting an exercise of condemnation through eminent domain may result in costly legal proceedings and may divert the attention of the affected Regulated Business’s management from the operation of its business. Moreover, our efforts to resist the acquisition may not be successful.

If a municipality or other government subdivision succeeds in acquiring the assets of one or more of our Regulated Businesses through eminent domain, there is a risk that we will not receive adequate compensation for the business, that we will not be able to keep the compensation, or that we will not be able to divest the business without incurring significant one-time charges.

We rely on our information technology (“IT”) systems to assist with the management of our business and customer and supplier relationships, and a disruption of these systems could adversely affect our business.

Our IT systems are an integral part of our business, and a serious disruption of our IT systems could significantly limit our ability to manage and operate our business efficiently, which, in turn, could cause our business and competitive position to suffer and adversely affect our results of operations. We depend on our IT systems to bill customers, process orders, provide customer service, manage construction projects, manage our financial records, track assets, remotely monitor certain of our plants and facilities and manage human resources, inventory and accounts receivable collections. Our IT systems also enable us to purchase products from our suppliers and bill customers on a timely basis, maintain cost-effective operations and provide service to our customers. While we recently completed the business transformation implementation for our ERP, EAM and CIS systems, a number of our mission and business critical IT systems are older, such as our SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) system. Although we do not believe that our IT systems are at a materially greater risk of cyber security incidents than other similar organizations, our IT systems remain vulnerable to damage or interruption from:

27

These events may result in physical and/or electronic loss of customer or financial data, security breaches, misappropriation and other adverse consequences. In addition, the lack of redundancy for certain of our IT systems, including billing systems, could exacerbate the impact of any of these events on us.

In addition, we may not be successful in developing or acquiring technology that is competitive and responsive to the needs of our business, and we might lack sufficient resources to make the necessary upgrades or replacements of our outdated existing technology to allow us to continue to operate at our current level of efficiency.

We may not be able to fully utilize our U.S. and state net operating loss carryforwards.

As of December 31, 2013, we had U.S. federal and state net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards of approximately $1,182.1 million and $628.0 million, respectively. Our federal NOL carryforwards begin to expire in 2028, and our state NOL carryforwards will expire between 2014 and 2033. Our ability to utilize our NOL carryforwards is primarily dependent upon our ability to generate sufficient taxable income. Moreover, because our previous owner’s divestiture of its stock was considered an “ownership change” under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code, the amount of NOL carryforwards that may be utilized in any year is limited. Our management believes the federal NOL carryforwards are more likely than not to be recovered and therefore currently require no valuation allowance. At December 31, 2013, $130.6 million of the state NOL carryforwards have been offset by a valuation allowance because the Company does not believe these NOLs will more likely than not be realized in the future, and we have, in the past, been unable to utilize certain of our NOLs. The establishment or increase of a valuation allowance in the future would reduce our deferred income tax assets and our net income.

Our actual results may differ from those estimated by management in making its assessment as to our ability to use the NOL carryforwards. Moreover, changes in income tax laws, the economy and general business environment could affect the future utilization of the NOL carryforwards. If we are unable to fully utilize our NOL carryforwards to offset taxable income generated in the future, our financial position, results of operations and cash flows could be materially adversely affected.

Our Market-Based Operations, through American Water (excluding our regulated subsidiaries) provide performance guarantees, including financial guarantees or deposits, to our public-sector and public clients, who may seek to enforce the guarantees if our Market-Based Operations do not satisfy certain obligations.

Under the terms of some of our agreements for the provision of services to water and wastewater facilities with municipalities, other governmental entities and other customers, American Water (excluding our regulated subsidiaries) provides guarantees of specified performance obligations of our Market-Based Operations, including financial guarantees or deposits. In the event our Market-Based Operations fail to perform these obligations, the entity holding the guarantees may seek to enforce the performance commitments against us or proceed against the deposit. In that event, our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, and liquidity could be adversely affected.

At December 31, 2013, we had remaining performance commitments as measured by remaining contract revenue totaling approximately $2916.0 million and this amount is likely to increase if our Market-Based Operations grow. The presence of these commitments may adversely affect our financial condition and make it more difficult for us to secure financing on attractive terms.

Our Market-Based Operations’ long-term contracts with the Department of Defense may be terminated for the convenience of the U.S. Government and are subject to periodic contract price redetermination.

All of our contracts with the Department of Defense for the operation and maintenance of water and wastewater systems may be terminated, in whole or in part, prior to the end of the 50-year term for convenience of the U.S. Government or as a result of default or non-performance by the subsidiary performing the contract. In addition, the contract price for each of these military contracts is typically subject to redetermination two years after commencement of operations and every three years thereafter. Price redetermination is a contract mechanism to periodically adjust the service fee in the next period to reflect changes in contract obligations and anticipated market conditions. Any early contract termination or unfavorable price redetermination could adversely affect our results of operations.

28

We operate a number of water and wastewater systems under O&M contracts and face the risk that the owners of those systems may fail to maintain those systems, which may negatively affect us as the operators of the systems.

We operate a number of water and wastewater systems under O&M contracts. Pursuant to these contracts, we operate the system according to the standards set forth in the applicable contract, and it is generally the responsibility of the owner to undertake capital improvements. In some cases, we may not be able to convince the owner to make needed improvements in order to maintain compliance with applicable regulations. Although violations and fines incurred by water and wastewater systems may be the responsibility of the owner of the system under these contracts, those non-compliance events may reflect poorly on us as the operator of the system and damage our reputation, and in some cases, may result in liability to the same extent as if we were the owner.

Our Market-Based Operations are party to long-term contracts to operate and maintain water and wastewater systems under which we may incur costs in excess of payments received.

Some of our Market-Based Operations enter into long-term contracts pursuant to which they agree to operate and maintain a municipality’s, federal government’s or other party’s water or wastewater treatment and delivery facilities, which includes responsibility for certain major maintenance for some of those facilities, in exchange for an annual fee. Our Market-Based Operations are generally subject to the risk that costs associated with operating and maintaining the facilities, including production costs such as purchased water, electricity, fuel and chemicals used in water treatment, may exceed the fees received from the municipality or other contracting party. In addition, directly or through our market-based subsidiaries, we often guarantee our Market-Based Operations’ obligations under those contracts. Losses under these contracts or guarantees may adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and liquidity.

Our inability to efficiently optimize and stabilize our recently implemented business transformation project, could result in higher than expected costs or otherwise adversely impact our internal controls environment, operations and profitability.

Over the past several years, we have implemented a “business transformation” project, which is intended to improve our business processes and upgrade our legacy core information technology systems. This multi-year, enterprise-wide initiative supports our broader strategic initiatives. The project is intended to optimize workflow throughout our field operations, improve our back-office operations and enhance our customer service capabilities. The scale and costs associated with the business transformation project were significant. Any technical or other difficulties in optimizing and stabilizing  this initiative may increase the costs of the project and have an adverse effect on our operations and reporting processes, including our internal control over financial reporting. In August 2012, our new business systems associated with Phase I of our business transformation project became operational. Phase I consisted of the roll-out of the Enterprise Resource Planning systems (“ERP”), which encompass applications that handle human resources, finance, and supply chain/procurement management activities. In the second quarter of 2013, we implemented Phase II of our business transformation project in a number of our regulated subsidiaries.  In the fourth quarter of 2013, Phase II of our business transformation project was implemented in our remaining regulated subsidiaries.  Phase II consisted of the roll-out of a new Enterprise Asset Management system, which manages an asset’s lifecycle, and a Customer Information system, which contains all billing and collections data pertaining to American Water’s customers for our Regulated segment.   Although efforts have been made to minimize any adverse impact on our controls, we cannot assure that all such impacts have been mitigated.

As we make adjustments to our operations, we may incur incremental expenses prior to realizing the benefits of a more efficient workforce and operating structure. Further, we may not realize anticipated cost improvements and greater efficiencies from the project.

We operate numerous information technology systems that have varying degrees of integration, sometimes leading to inefficiencies. Therefore, delays in stabilization and optimization of the business transformation project will also delay cost savings and efficiencies expected to result from the project. We may also experience difficulties consolidating our current systems, moving to a common set of operational processes and implementing a successful change management process. These difficulties may impact our ability to meet customer needs efficiently. Any such delays or difficulties may have a material and adverse impact on our business, client relationships and financial results.

None.

29

Our properties consist of transmission, distribution and collection pipe, water and wastewater treatment plants, pumping wells, tanks, meters, supply lines, dams, reservoirs, buildings, vehicles, land, easements, software rights and other facilities and equipment used for the operation of our systems, including the collection, treatment, storage and distribution of water, and the collection and treatment of wastewater. Substantially all of our properties are owned by our subsidiaries, and a substantial portion of our property is subject to liens of our mortgage bonds. We lease our corporate offices, equipment and furniture, located in Voorhees, New Jersey from certain of our wholly-owned subsidiaries. These properties are utilized by our directors, officers and staff in the conduct of the business.

Our regulated subsidiaries own, in the states in which they operate, transmission, distribution and collection pipes, pump stations, treatment plants, storage tanks, reservoirs and related facilities. A substantial acreage of land is owned by our Regulated Businesses, the greater part of which is located in watershed areas, with the balance being principally sites of pumping and treatment plants, storage reservoirs, tanks and standpipes. Additionally, property and facilities including such items as well fields, tanks, offices and operation centers, are also leased by our regulated subsidiaries. Our Market-Based Operations’ properties consist mainly of spreading and waste transportation equipment, office furniture and IT equipment and are primarily located in New Jersey and Canada. Approximately 50% of our properties are located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

We maintain property insurance against loss or damage to our properties by fire or other perils, subject to certain exceptions. For insured losses, we are self-insured to the extent that any losses are within the policy deductible or exceed the amount of insurance maintained. Any such losses could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

We believe that our properties are generally maintained in good operating condition and in accordance with current standards of good water and wastewater works industry practice, and units of property are replaced as and when necessary.

Alternative Water Supply in Lieu of Carmel River Diversions

In 1995, the California Water Resources Control Board (the "Water Resources Control Board") issued an administrative order (the “1995 Order”) to California-American Water Company (“CAWC”) requiring CAWC to implement an alternative water supply in lieu of diversions from the Carmel River. The Water Resources Control Board held administrative hearings in the summer of 2008 to address claims that CAWC has exceeded its water diversion rights in the Carmel River and has not diligently pursued establishing an alternative water supply as required by the 1995 Order. The Water Resources Control Board adopted a Cease and Desist Order applicable to CAWC on October 20, 2009 (the “2009 Order”). The 2009 Order finds that CAWC has not sufficiently implemented actions to terminate its unpermitted diversions from the Carmel River as required by the 1995 Order. The 2009 Order requires, among other things, that CAWC significantly decrease its yearly diversions from the Carmel River according to a set reduction schedule running from the date the 2009 Order was adopted until December 31, 2016, at which point all unpermitted diversions must end. Failure to effect the decrease in diversions mandated by the 2009 Order could result in substantial penalties. We can provide no assurances that CAWC will be able to comply with the diversion reduction requirements and other remaining requirements under the 2009 Order or that any such compliance will not result in material additional costs or obligations to us. As noted below, CAWC does not expect to have sufficient alternative sources of water available by the December 31, 2016 deadline, and has begun discussions with the Water Resources Control Board to extend the deadline.

On December 2, 2010, the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) approved the Regional Desalination Project (the “Project”), involving the construction of a desalination facility on the California central coast, north of Monterey. The Project was to be implemented through a Water Purchase Agreement and ancillary agreements (collectively, the “Agreements”) among the Marina Coast Water District (“MCWD”), the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (“MCWRA”) and CAWC. The desalination facility was to be constructed and owned by MCWD, and MCWRA was to construct the wells that were to supply water to the desalination facility. The Project was intended, among other things, to fulfill CAWC’s obligations under the 1995 Order, in addition to other obligations.

The Project was subject to delay due to, among other things, funding delays and investigations and inquiries initiated by public authorities relating to an alleged conflict of interest concerning a former member of the MCWRA Board of Directors (the “Former Director”). The Former Director was paid for consulting work by a contractor to MCWD while serving on the MCWRA Board of Directors. The contractor subsequently was retained as project manager for the Project. (On November 15, 2011, the Monterey County District Attorney charged the Former Director with two felony counts of conflict of interest relating to the Project, as well as additional felony and misdemeanor counts for other activities.)

30

On July 7, 2011, MCWRA advised MCWD and CAWC that the Agreements were void as a result of the conduct of the Former Director. Subsequently, on August 12, 2011, CAWC advised MCWD and MCWRA that they have defaulted in performance of certain financing obligations under the Water Purchase Agreement. By letter delivered to MCWD and MCWRA on September 28, 2011, CAWC terminated the Agreements, based on MCWRA’s repudiation of the Agreements. In other communications among the parties, each of MCWD and MCWRA have stated that it complied with the financing obligations, and MCWD further responded that, among other things, CAWC did not comply on a timely basis with an obligation under the Water Purchase Agreement that CAWC provide a letter of credit. MCWD also asserted that the Agreements remain in effect. On January 17, 2012, following unsuccessful mediation efforts among the parties, CAWC publicly announced that it had withdrawn support of the Project.

Disputes among the parties with respect to the Project continued thereafter. In public filings before the CPUC, MCWD asserted, among other things, that the CPUC should require CAWC to reimburse MCWD for all costs expended by MCWD in connection with the Project. MCWRA asserted that it was entitled to reimbursement of all costs or expenses relating to the Project, including enumerated expenses under the WPA. Each of MCWD and MCWRA also claimed entitlement to forgiveness of the indebtedness to CAWC that it incurred in connection with the Project. In response, CAWC challenged MCWD’s claim that it is entitled to reimbursement for certain purported litigation expenses, and has stated generally that, in light of the failure of MCWD and MCWRA to fulfill their contractual obligations under the Water Purchase Agreement, their entitlement to reimbursement is unclear. On July 12, 2012, the CPUC closed the proceedings relating to the Project and stated that it would examine the recoverability of costs related to the Project in other proceedings. CAWC plans to file a new application seeking recovery of legal costs relating to the Project after any pending legal disputes are resolved.

On September 17, 2012, CAWC and MCWRA entered into a Tolling and Standstill Agreement whereby each party agreed to toll the statute of limitations on any claims either party may have against the other with respect to the Project and agreed not to commence litigation against the other while the agreement is in effect. In December 2012, CAWC, MCWRA, and the County of Monterey entered into a settlement agreement under which CAWC will forgive approximately $1.9 million previously loaned by CAWC to MCWRA in connection with the Project, and CAWC will make additional payments of up to approximately $1.5 million to MCWRA (approximately half of which will be paid directly to MCWRA; the remaining amount will be placed in an escrow account to pay claims of consultants and contractors against MCWRA relating to the Project). The settlement agreement, the debt forgiveness and the additional payments are conditioned on CPUC approval, including approval of CAWC rate recovery of the debt forgiveness and the additional payments. The settlement agreement does not affect a civil proceeding filed by CAWC for declaratory relief relating to the validity of the Agreements, which is described below. On May 24, 2013, CAWC filed an application with the CPUC for approval of the settlement agreement and rate recovery on CAWC’s debt forgiveness and additional payments to MCWRA under the settlement agreement. The application is pending.

CAWC sought to enter into an agreement with MCWD whereby each party would agree to toll the statute of limitations on any claims either party may have against the other with respect to the Project and agree not to commence litigation against the other, but MCWD initially refused to do so. Therefore, on September 18, 2012, CAWC filed a formal claim with the MCWD Board seeking monetary damages against MCWD. In its claim, CAWC alleges that the Project was terminated due to, among other things, MCWD’s breach of one of the Agreements by failing to use its best efforts to obtain project financing, that MCWD has failed to repay approximately $6 million loaned by CAWC to MCWD in connection with the Project, and that CAWC made substantial expenditures in connection with the Project, which it is entitled to recover from MCWD. CAWC has claimed damages potentially in excess of $20 million. On November 2, 2012, MCWD provided notice that the Board of MCWD rejected CAWC’s claims for damages. CAWC had six months from such date to file a court action on this claim, but prior to the expiration of the six month period, CAWC and MCWD entered into a tolling agreement, which, as extended by subsequent agreement, toll applicable statutes of limitations and the deadline for commencement of litigation regarding CAWC’s claims until March 1, 2014.  

On October 4, 2012, CAWC filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief in the Monterey County Superior Court against MCWRA and MCWD, seeking a determination by the Court as to whether the Agreements are void as a result of the Former Director’s alleged conflict of interest, or remained valid. On November 21, 2012, MCWD filed an Answer to CAWC’s Complaint, a Motion to Change Venue, and a Cross-Complaint for Declaratory Relief. MCWD’s cross-complaint seeks a judicial declaration that any challenge to the validity of the Agreements are time-barred or barred by the California Public Utilities Code. MCWRA filed its Answer to CAWC’s cross-complaint on December 7, 2012, alleging, among other things, that this action must be stayed pending conclusion of the criminal proceeding relating to the alleged conflict of interest by the Former Director. After CAWC indicated that it did not object to a change of venue, the Monterey County Superior Court approved MCWD’s motion to transfer the case to San Francisco County Superior Court, and the transfer was accepted by the San Francisco County Superior Court on January 30, 2013. On October 9, 2013, MCWD filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Summary Adjudication, seeking a determination that the Agreements are valid. In its motion, MCWD asserts that the Court does not have jurisdiction to determine the validity of the agreements on the basis that the agreements were approved by final decisions of the CPUC, and under the California Public Utilities Code, superior courts are prohibited from exercising jurisdiction to decide matters that would interfere with the CPUC’s policies or performance of its duties. MCWD also argued that the action was barred by 60-day statutes of limitations applicable to certain contracts entered into by the MCWD and to certain contracts entered into by the MCWRA. CAWC  filed responsive pleadings challenging the motion. On

31

February 21,2014, the Court conducted a hearing on the motion, and ordered the parties to submit additional briefs by February 21, 2014.  Subject to the Court's decision on the motion, a trial has been scheduled to commence on March 24, 2014.

On April 23, 2012, CAWC filed an application with the CPUC for approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (the “New Project”). The New Project involves construction of a desalination plant and related facilities, all to be owned by CAWC. In addition, the New Project may encompass CAWC’s purchase of water from the proposed Monterey Peninsula Groundwater Replenishment Project (the “GWR Project”), a joint project between the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (“MPWMD”). The New Project also would involve aquifer storage and recovery through an already established aquifer storage and recovery program between CAWC and the MPWMD. CAWC stated in the application that it anticipates, based on discussions with the Water Resources Control Board, that it is eligible for a State Revolving Fund Loan for the New Project. The application also seeks CPUC approval of ratemaking mechanisms designed to enable CAWC to recover its costs related to construction and operation of the New Project, including funding for principal and interest on the State Revolving Fund Loan.  

On July 31, 2013, CAWC entered into a settlement agreement with 15 other parties that have intervened in the CPUC proceedings with respect to the New Project, including several Monterey County government entities, the Division of Ratepayer Advocates of the CPUC and several interest groups. Under the settlement agreement, the parties have agreed on several matters relating to the New Project, including, among other things, the following: cost caps for the desalination plant and certain pipeline facilities to be constructed by CAWC aggregating $295.7 million to $338.4 million, depending on the size of the desalination plant ultimately approved by the CPUC; the process for recovery of project costs, including cost recovery for capital (CAWC agreed to maintain a fixed equity investment in the New Project equal to approximately 27% of total costs related to the desalination plant and certain other facilities to be constructed by CAWC), and operation and maintenance costs; procedures by which CAWC may seek recovery for reasonable and prudent costs above the caps; recommended criteria the CPUC should use to determine whether CAWC should build a smaller desalination plant to accommodate CAWC’s purchase of water from the GWR Project; the development of a hydrogeologic study work plan to determine the extent, if any, to which the proposed New Project may adversely affect the Salinas River Groundwater Basin and the water supply; contingency measures if the initially proposed intake wells, brine discharge mechanisms and plant location are infeasible; and financing mechanisms for the New Project. In a separate settlement agreement among most of the same parties, the participating parties agreed on sizing of the desalination plant at 9.6 million gallons per day, if the GWR Project does not supply water to CAWC, and, if the GWR Project supplies water to CAWC, either 6.4 million gallons per day or 6.9 million gallons per day depending on discrete capacities of GWR Project water.

The settlement agreements are subject to the approval of the CPUC and will not take effect unless the CPUC determines they are reasonable within the law and the public interest, and until the CPUC certifies an environmental impact report for the proposed New Project, which currently is expected to be issued in the first quarter of 2015.  

Moreover, CAWC’s ability to move forward on the New Project is subject to extensive administrative review by the CPUC, review by other government agencies of necessary permit applications, and intervention from other parties, including some that are not participants in the settlement agreements. In addition, there have been delays in the initial timetable for preparation of the environmental impact report due to, among other things, uncertainties regarding timing of government approval of various required permits. As a result, CAWC estimates that the earliest date by which the New Project could be completed is mid- to late 2018. We cannot assure that CAWC’s application for the New Project will be approved or that the New Project will be completed on a timely basis, if ever.

Because the projected completion date of the New Project is beyond the December 31, 2016 deadline for CAWC to terminate unpermitted diversions from the Carmel River, CAWC has commenced discussions with the Water Resources Control Board and other government representatives to extend the December 2016 deadline. While CAWC believes the discussions have been constructive, we cannot assume that the deadline will be extended.

Water Treatment Residuals Disposal Matters

CAWC operates six water treatment plants in California that remove excess arsenic from raw water in order to achieve compliance with applicable drinking water standards. The water treatment plants are located in Monterey (Ambler, Ryan Ranch, Toro), Sacramento (Isleton, Walnut Grove) and Sonoma (Larkfield) Counties. The removal process generates a waste stream (“residuals”) that contains, among other things, low levels of the arsenic removed from the raw water. If arsenic levels in solid waste exceed certain specified concentrations, the waste should be characterized as “hazardous.” Under the California Hazardous Waste Control Act (“HWCA”), hazardous waste is subject to different transportation and disposal requirements than non-hazardous waste. For purposes of classifying a waste as hazardous, California uses a threshold for arsenic that is significantly lower than the threshold specified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. In April 2013, the Monterey County Health Department, Environmental Health Department (“MCHD”) notified CAWC that the MCHD received a complaint filed with the California Department of Toxic Substance Control regarding arsenic levels and disposal locations of sludge generated from CAWC’s Ambler Park and Toro water treatment plants prior to May 2013. MCHD requested that CAWC provide MCHD with sludge disposal records, analytical results and supporting documentation related to this matter. CAWC submitted the requested information to MCHD and advised MCHD that, based on the analysis performed, it appears that some of the residual wastes from the Ambler Park and Toro plants, as well as a third plant (Ryan Ranch), may have exceeded California hazardous waste soluble threshold limit concentration requirements and should

32

therefore have not been disposed of at the non-hazardous waste disposal facilities to which they were transported. CAWC further advised MCHD that, in light of the findings, CAWC modified its procedures to insure that wastes transported for disposal are properly characterized and managed. CAWC similarly determined and self-reported to the Sacramento County Environmental Management Department (“SCEMD”) that it may have improperly disposed of arsenic residuals from its Isleton treatment plant before July 2013.

By letter dated November 6, 2013, the Monterey County District Attorney advised CAWC that it had received a report from the MCHD that CAWC had transported and disposed such hazardous wastes in violation of applicable provisions of the California Health and Safety Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Violators of the Health and Safety Code and the Business and Professions Code are subject to liabilities of $25,000 per violation and $2,500 per violation, respectively. On November 20, 2013, CAWC met with the District Attorney to discuss the matter. The District Attorney has not indicated whether enforcement action will be taken. Similarly, CAWC continues to discuss the matter related to the Isleton treatment palnt with the SCEMD, which also has not indicated whether enforcement action will be taken. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.

West Virginia Elk River Chemical Spill

On January 9, 2014, a chemical storage tank owned by Freedom Industries, Inc. leaked two substances used for processing coal, 4-methylcyclohexane methanol, or MCHM, and PPH, a mix of polyglocol ethers, into the Elk River near the West Virginia-American Water Company ("WVAWC") treatment plant intake in Charleston, West Virginia. After having been alerted to the leak of MCHM by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”), (Freedom Industries first notified DEP on January 21, 2014 that PPH was also leaked), WVAWC took immediate steps to gather more information about MCHM, augment its treatment process as a precaution, and begin consultations with federal, state and local public health officials. As soon as possible after it was determined that the augmented treatment process would not fully remove the MCHM, a joint decision was reached in consultation with the West Virginia Bureau for Public Health to issue a “Do Not Use” order to approximately 300,000 people in parts of nine West Virginia counties. The order addressed the use of water for drinking, cooking, washing and bathing, but did not affect continued use of water for sanitation and fire protection. Over the next several days, WVAWC and an interagency team of state and federal officials engaged in extensive sampling and testing to determine if levels of MCHM were below one part per million (1 ppm), a level that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicated would be protective of public health. Beginning on January 13, 2014, based on the results of the continued testing, the Do Not Use order was lifted in stages to help ensure the water system was not overwhelmed by excessive demand, which could have caused additional water quality and service issues. By January 18, 2014, none of WVAWC’s customers were subject to the Do Not Use order, although CDC guidance suggesting that pregnant women avoid consuming the water until the chemicals are at non-detectable levels remained in place.  In addition, based on re-analysis of previously saved samples, PPH was no longer detected at any sampling locations as of January 18, 2014. On February 21, 2014, WVAWC announced that all points of testing throughout its water distribution system indicated that levels of MCHM are below 10 parts per billion (10 ppb). The interagency team established 10 ppb as the “non-detect” level of MCHM in the water distribution system based on the measurement capabilities of the multiple laboratories used. WVAWC is continuing sampling and testing in an effort to pinpoint its flushing activities and address odor issues.

To date, an aggregate of 50 lawsuits have been filed against WVAWC with respect to this matter in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, and West Virginia Circuit Courts in Kanawha, Boone, and Putman counties. Many of these lawsuits also name Freedom Industries (which is now in bankruptcy), and a few also name the Company or other Company affiliates. The plaintiffs include local businesses, individuals and a Putnam County municipality. The complaints generally seek class action status; raise claims based on a variety of tort, statutory and contract theories; and seek a combination of compensatory damages, punitive damages, medical monitoring, and other equitable relief. Frequently cited causes of action include negligence, nuisance, trespass, strict liability, and violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act.  Additionally, investigations with respect to the matter have been initiated by the Chemical Safety Board, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of West Virginia, the West Virginia Attorney General, and other governmental entities.

The Company and WVAWC believe that WVAWC has responded appropriately to, and has no responsibility for, the Freedom Industries spill and the Company, WVAWC and other Company-affiliated entities named in any of the lawsuits have valid, meritorious defenses to the lawsuits. The Company, WVAWC and the other Company affiliates intend to vigorously contest the lawsuits. Nevertheless, an adverse outcome in one or more of the lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, liquidity and reputation. Moreover, WVAWC and the Company are unable to predict the outcome of the ongoing government investigations or any legislative initiatives that might affect water utility operations.

Periodically, the Company is involved in other proceedings or litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. We do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will materially affect the Company’s financial position or results of operations. However, litigation and other proceedings are subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of individual matters is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that some litigation and other proceedings could be decided unfavorably to us, and that any such unfavorable decisions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

33

Not applicable

34

PART II

Since April 23, 2008, our common stock has traded on the NYSE under the symbol “AWK.” As of February 20, 2014, there were 178,722,663 shares of common stock outstanding and approximately 1,800 record holders of common stock.

The following table sets forth the per-share range of the high and low closing sales prices of our common stock as reported on the NYSE and the cash dividends paid and declared per share for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012.

*The dividend that would have normally been paid in the first quarter of 2013 was paid on December 28, 2012 to allow shareholders to take advantage of the existing 2012 tax rates.

For information on securities authorized for issuance under our equity compensation see Item 12, “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.”

35