Climate · United States of America
US water bills rose 62% over a decade, report says
Food & Water Watch says bills at large US community systems climbed faster than inflation and household incomes. Industry representatives said the comparison needs to account for infrastructure and other system costs.
A Food & Water Watch analysis says US household water bills rose 62% in a decade, with affordability pressures concentrated among lower-income customers.
- Average 2025 bill was reported at $531.
- Study covered 500 large community water systems.
- Bills exceeded the benchmark in 93% of systems.
- California dominated the highest-cost systems.
- Industry groups challenged the ownership comparison.
What's new
- Food & Water Watch released its national billing analysis on 6 October.
- The report compared 2025 bills with its 2015 survey.
- Water-industry representatives challenged aspects of the comparison.
- California accounted for more than half of the 25 highest-cost systems.
US household drinking-water bills at the 500 largest community water systems rose by an average of 62% between 2015 and 2025, according to a Food & Water Watch report released on 6 October. The study found an average annual charge of $531 for 60,000 gallons in 2025 and said increases outpaced inflation, grocery prices and median household income.12
Costs and affordability
Food & Water Watch reported that the utilities in its analysis provide service to over 155 million residents, representing 45% of the US population. It put the cheapest annual bill at $133 and the highest at $1,416. The organisation said consumer prices increased 39% from 2015 to 2025, compared with the reported 62% increase in water bills. Using its affordability benchmark, the group found that water charges were greater than 1.5% of earnings for the bottom 20% of households at 93% of the utilities studied; the report identified Idaho and Utah as the only states under that level.12
The study identified Puerto Rico as having its most severe reported affordability burden, estimating that low-income households there faced water charges equal to 20% of income. It also said bills in Louisiana, Maryland and West Virginia grew about twice as quickly as state median household incomes, while New Hampshire’s bills rose nearly five times faster. Mary Grant, Food & Water Watch’s water policy director and a study co-author, said: “Low-income households are being hit the hardest.”12
Ownership and regional differences
According to Food & Water Watch, corporate-owned utilities charged an average annual household bill of $823 in 2025, against $494 at publicly owned systems. The report said privately owned utilities represented 11% of the sample, yet comprised 44% of the 25 systems with the highest charges; all 25 systems with the lowest charges were publicly owned. The National Association of Water Companies said it had not reviewed the study and said its member companies offered assistance programmes for lower-income customers.2
California featured prominently in the report’s highest-cost group. Food & Water Watch said 52% of the 25 most expensive systems were in California, although the state made up 18% of the dataset. San Jose’s corporate system had the highest reported annual charge, at $1,416. A separate account of the findings said four California utilities ranked among the national top 10, while the average bill across 91 California utilities was $693 in 2025 after an average 83% increase over the decade.13
Dispute over what bills measure
The American Water Works Association said infrastructure renewal, resilience measures and regulatory requirements were among cost pressures that could threaten affordability. It estimated that financing infrastructure entirely through customer charges would increase the typical yearly household drinking-water bill from $429 in 2025 to $969 in 2050. Food & Water Watch cited federal and industry estimates of $625 billion and about $960 billion respectively for drinking-water upgrades over 20 years.12
Industry representatives disputed the report’s implications for ownership. Jenn Kocher of the National Association of Water Companies said rising bills “reflect sector-wide cost pressures, not ownership models,” while the association argued that comparisons should account for actual use, infrastructure investment and other utility costs. San Jose Water Co. said the report used aggregated data in a way it considered flawed. Food & Water Watch recommends barring water privatisation and repealing legislation it considers supportive of privatisation.135
Why it matters
For readers in Europe, the US findings offer a documented example of how household affordability can become central when water systems require substantial investment. The report and industry response also show that the size of bills can be contested: Food & Water Watch focuses on charges and income burdens, while industry representatives point to maintenance, resilience and system-performance costs.12
Version history
- version 1 ·