US households are paying 62% more for drinking water than they did a decade ago, outpacing inflation, grocery prices and household incomes, according to a new study by Food & Water Watch, a Washington DC-based non-profit.
Study findings
The analysis looked at 2025 billing data from the 500 largest community water systems in the US, which together serve about 155 million people, or 45% of the country's population. It compared current rates with data from a similar survey the group conducted in 2015. The study does not include wastewater or storm water charges, which are often billed separately from drinking water service.
In 2025, the average household using 60,000 gallons of water paid $531 for drinking water service. However, costs varied widely, with annual bills ranging from $133 at the cheapest system to $1,416 at the most expensive.
Rising costs
Water prices rose 1.6 times faster than overall inflation between 2015 and 2025. Consumer prices increased 39% during that period, compared with a 62% jump in water bills. Water costs also rose more than twice as fast as groceries, which increased 30%, and eggs, which rose 28%.
Water bills also rose faster than household incomes, increasing 19% more than the national median household income between 2014 and 2024, the study found.
Mary Grant, Food & Water Watch's water program director and a co-author of the study, said: “Water bills are increasing much faster than many households can keep up with and these escalating water costs impact every corner of the country. Low-income households are being hit the hardest.”
“Corporate water abuses, federal disinvestment and climate change are supercharging water rate hikes across the country,” she added.
State and system disparities
The increases were particularly severe in some states. Water bills in New Hampshire jumped 177% over the decade, followed by Oregon at 114% and West Virginia at 95%. In Louisiana, Maryland and West Virginia, water bills grew at roughly twice the rate of state median household incomes, while in New Hampshire water bills increased nearly five times faster.
The study also found a major disparity between publicly owned and for-profit water systems. Corporate-owned utilities charged the average household $823 a year, compared with $494 for publicly owned systems – a difference of $329, or 67%. Corporate systems accounted for just 11% of the 500 systems analyzed but represented 44% of the 25 most expensive systems. The study added that 70% of the top 10 were owned by for-profit corporations.
California accounted for 52% of the 25 most expensive water systems. By contrast, all 25 of the least expensive systems were publicly owned, with about 60% located in the south, including many in Florida and Georgia.
Affordability crisis
Water was even less affordable for low-income households, with bills exceeding the study's affordability threshold in 93% of systems, costing more than 1.5% of income for the poorest fifth of households. Only Idaho and Utah stayed below the threshold.
West Virginia and Puerto Rico faced the heaviest financial burdens. Water bills consumed about 11% of income for low-income households in West Virginia and roughly 20% in Puerto Rico, which the study described as “simply unaffordable by any metric”.
Grant said water systems must make updates to repair “ageing water lines and help clean up toxic contamination from lead pipes, Pfas forever chemicals, nitrate pollution from industrial agriculture, the list goes on”. She added: “Corporate control of water systems exacerbates this affordability crisis, as big water monopolies take away local control, prioritize profit and hike water prices even higher.”
Grant said communities could face increasingly difficult choices as they struggle to secure additional public investment. “Without real solutions to hold polluters accountable, establish local affordability programs and expand federal support, systems serving vulnerable communities could face the impossible choice: forgo an urgent water safety project or price many out of water service,” she said.
Industry responses
In a separate statement, the American Water Works Association (AWWA), a non-profit whose membership includes more than 4,300 utilities supplying roughly 80% of North America's drinking water and treating nearly half its wastewater, pointed to infrastructure renewal, resilience and regulatory requirements as key cost drivers threatening drinking water affordability.
“If communities rely exclusively on revenue from water bills to address these needs, average annual household drinking water bills would rise from $429 in 2025 to $969 by 2050 (2025 dollars) – more than doubling in real terms,” AWWA spokesperson Greg Kail said.
“That would mean an estimated 30.4m households – or 21.5% – would spend more than 2.5% of their income on drinking water, and 53.5m households – 37.8% – would exceed a 1.5% income threshold. An estimated $13.6bn per year in assistance would be needed by 2050 to keep water bills below commonly understood affordability benchmarks,” Kail added.
Meanwhile, the National Association of Water Companies (NAWC), a trade association representing privately owned water and wastewater utilities, said it had not reviewed the Food & Water Watch study but emphasized the growing costs of maintaining water systems.
“Affordability is a legitimate challenge for many households and one that NAWC and its members take seriously,” NAWC spokesperson Jenn Kocher said, citing costs tied to ageing infrastructure, Pfas and lead regulations, cybersecurity and severe weather.
Kocher also highlighted customer-assistance programs offered by private water companies, saying: “Many regulated, private water companies offer robust assistance programs that help low-income customers maintain service and manage bills. These programs are often overlooked in rate comparisons.”
“By comparison, many government-owned utilities face legal or other restrictions on cross-subsidizing customers, which can limit the types of assistance programs they are able to provide,” she added. “Evaluating affordability based solely on published rate schedules can produce a misleading picture of what many customers actually pay after assistance and conservation programs are taken into account,” Kocher continued.
