In the United States, access to safe, clean drinking water remains an unresolved challenge for millions of residents. Despite being a highly developed nation, approximately two million Americans live without reliable access to running water or indoor plumbing in their homes. Moreover, 30 million individuals reside in areas equipped with drinking water systems that consistently violate safety regulations, exposing these populations to potential health risks. Such alarming statistics call for urgent attention, especially as the contamination of drinking water can have profound and long-lasting impacts on public health.
Water privatization—the transfer of publicly owned water systems to private entities—has emerged as a proposed strategy to address these deficiencies. Advocates claim that private companies bring efficiency, innovation, and financial incentives that can improve infrastructure and compliance. However, skeptics argue that shifting control to profit-driven corporations risks compromising public welfare because private firms may prioritize earnings over equitable service delivery and rigorous safety standards. This contentious debate prompted researchers to investigate whether ownership structure correlates with water quality compliance and perceived water access.
A pioneering study recently published in the acclaimed journal Risk Analysis employs advanced geospatial mapping techniques to analyze the distribution of water system ownership across the country, alongside patterns of regulatory violations and social vulnerability. Unlike previous research, this work uniquely integrates quantitative data on system performance with qualitative assessments of local residents’ perceptions regarding water quality, safety, and accessibility. The authors utilized national databases including the Environmental Protection Agency’s Safe Drinking Water Information System and the Centers for Disease Control’s Environmental Justice Index to generate comprehensive county-level scores reflecting both objective risks and subjective experiences related to water injustice.
The findings reveal a complex landscape characterized by “hotspots” where violations and water access disparities cluster geographically. For example, the top ten counties with the highest incidence of drinking water violations were located predominantly within West Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Oklahoma. Notably, the single water system reporting the most violations was a public system managed by a local government entity in Wyoming County, West Virginia, indicating that public ownership does not inherently guarantee compliance or water safety. These patterns underscore the continued vulnerability of certain regions despite decades of regulatory oversight.
Equally concerning are the epicenters of water injustice, largely concentrated in Mississippi, South Dakota, and Texas. Mississippi accounts for eight out of the ten counties exhibiting the highest water injustice scores. Water injustice here is conceptualized as unequal access to safe drinking water disproportionately affecting low-income families and communities of color. These findings highlight entrenched environmental inequities that persist despite advancements in water treatment technologies and regulatory frameworks.
An intriguing insight emerges from the association between privatization and water injustice. Contrary to some assumptions, hotspots of water injustice were more frequently found in counties with lower proportions of privatized water systems. This refutes simplistic narratives that public water systems always perform better in safeguarding vulnerable populations. Instead, the results suggest a nuanced reality where neither public nor private ownership guarantees better or worse outcomes by itself. Rather, local contextual factors such as regulatory enforcement rigor, infrastructure condition, and community engagement critically shape the effectiveness of water provision.
The perceptual dimension adds another layer of complexity. Residents living in counties with heightened water injustice and a larger share of privatized water systems reported amplified concerns about water security, encompassing anxieties about accessibility, safety, and reliability. These community perceptions reflect lived experiences of uncertainty and mistrust that often go unmeasured by conventional compliance metrics. Accounting for such subjective responses is essential to fully grasp the social ramifications of water management decisions and policies.
From a technical standpoint, water system violations encompass a range of regulatory infractions under the Safe Drinking Water Act. These include instances when contaminant levels exceed federally mandated maximums, failures to implement required water treatment protocols, lapses in scheduled monitoring, and inadequate communication with customers about water safety. Persistent violations not only undermine public trust but also jeopardize population health, especially among vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, and immunocompromised individuals.
The researchers utilized a sophisticated mixed-methods approach, combining spatial analysis of environmental data with a nationally representative community survey conducted in 2019. This survey gathered individuals’ ratings of their local water quality, access, and reliability, allowing integration of subjective water injustice indicators into the analysis. By cross-referencing these datasets with ownership maps, the study provides a granular view of how system management interacts with social vulnerability and public perception.
Lead author Alex Segrè Cohen, an assistant professor specializing in science and risk communication at the University of Oregon, emphasizes that these findings carry significant policy implications. “Our results suggest that privatization alone is not a solution,” Segrè Cohen states. “The local context—including enforcement effectiveness, infrastructure investments, and community priorities—is crucial in determining whether communities have consistent, safe access to drinking water.” She calls for policymakers to use these geospatial insights to target enforcement in high-risk areas, improve infrastructure where needed, and enact policies that maintain affordability while guaranteeing safety.
The study’s comprehensive analysis challenges the conventional binary framing of water system ownership by illuminating the multifaceted challenges entwined with environmental justice, regulatory compliance, and public trust. It advocates for context-sensitive approaches that transcend simplistic privatization-versus-public ownership debates. Effective risk management in drinking water provision demands an integration of technical standards, community engagement, and equitable governance to address persistent injustices and reduce health risks nationwide.
Importantly, this research sheds light on the intersections between physical infrastructure and social systems. Environmental injustices in water access arise not merely from technical failures, but from historical, political, and economic factors that disproportionately impact marginalized populations. Addressing these disparities requires interdisciplinary solutions bridging engineering, policy, social science, and public health—a holistic strategy essential for realizing the human right to water.
As the climate crisis intensifies and infrastructure ages, ensuring equitable, safe drinking water grows ever more urgent. This study’s innovative mixed methods merge technological rigor with social insight, providing an evidence-based roadmap for governments and communities to confront the dual challenges of contamination and injustice. Ultimately, realizing universal access to safe water demands sustained commitment to transparency, enforcement, and inclusion across diverse stakeholders.
Subject of Research: Not specified in detail beyond water quality and access
Article Title: Mapping risks of water injustice and perceptions of privatized drinking water in the United States: A mixed methods approach
News Publication Date: March 25, 2025
Web References: www.sra.org
Keywords:
Water, Sociopolitical systems, Risk assessment, Water quality, Security policy, Environmental issues, Environmental management, Environmental monitoring, Plumbing, Academic policy, Regulatory policy, Risk communication
