Water insecurity is not only a developing-world problem - it is growing in the United States
Safe water is not guaranteed in the United States
Water insecurity is typically framed as a problem belonging to low-income countries. That framing is increasingly difficult to sustain. At the American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting in Phoenix, a panel organized by Arizona State University researchers is presenting evidence that household water insecurity is a measurable and growing challenge within US borders.
The session, titled "Beyond the Tap: Water Insecurity in the United States," is organized by Patrick Thomson, a research scientist with ASU's Arizona Water for All project, and moderated by Regents and President's Professor Alexandra Brewis from ASU's School of Human Evolution and Social Change. The panel brings together researchers from multiple institutions to examine national patterns, eroding public trust in water providers, and the inadequacy of current metrics for capturing the scope of the problem.
Where the system is failing
Water infrastructure in the United States is aging, and the consequences are not uniformly distributed. Rural areas - particularly communities along the US-Mexico border, in Appalachia, and across Tribal nations - face the sharpest pressures. Many of these communities rely on small water systems that operate outside standard regulatory oversight, unregulated private wells, or water trucked in from outside sources. These arrangements affect millions of people and carry serious implications for health, household economics, and quality of life.
Urban and suburban areas are not immune. National data show increasing rates of water quality violations across the country, and recent studies have documented unexpected levels of what researchers call "plumbing poverty" - households in US cities that lack reliable access to functioning indoor plumbing. The Los Angeles wildfires and the Eastern Freeze demonstrated how vulnerable even well-resourced water systems can be to extreme weather events, with pipes rupturing, supply systems failing, and residents left without usable water for extended periods.
Rising costs are compounding the problem. As water prices increase and high-profile contamination events generate news coverage, more households are turning away from tap water entirely. Bottled water consumption in the United States has grown substantially over the past decade, with lower-income households spending a disproportionate share of their budgets on bottled alternatives. This behavioral shift deepens both health and economic inequalities.
Measuring what we cannot currently see
"The problem is complex and deep-seated. It is impossible to fully understand the scope of water insecurity in the US by measuring coverage and cost alone," said Thomson. "Developing nationally-comparable metrics that better reflect people's lived experience of water insecurity is a critical step toward understanding the issue and then improving health and wellbeing by giving people a safe, reliable, and trusted water supply."
Current frameworks for tracking water access in high-income countries were not designed to capture the range of ways that water insecurity manifests. A household with a functioning tap connection but water that smells of chlorine, or that has been contaminated by lead pipes, or that comes from a system under a boil advisory - that household shows up as "served" in standard coverage statistics even though its members may be rationing use or relying on bottled alternatives.
The panel will present preliminary findings from a new national study designed to develop the kind of metrics that can capture this lived reality. Wendy Jepson from Texas A&M University will discuss national patterns in water insecurity. Justin Stoler from the University of Miami will present work on diminishing trust in water providers. Melissa Beresford from San Jose State University will share new approaches to conceptualizing water affordability that go beyond simple cost-to-income ratios.
Why trust matters as much as access
The trust dimension of water insecurity deserves particular attention. In contexts where public confidence in tap water has eroded - whether due to documented contamination events, visible infrastructure decay, or broader distrust of public institutions - even restoring water quality may not restore water use behaviors. Flint, Michigan became the most prominent example of this dynamic, but it is not unique. Communities across the country have experienced similar cycles of contamination, public health failure, and lasting damage to trust that persists long after water quality metrics return to acceptable levels.
This behavioral legacy matters for health. Families avoiding tap water and relying on bottled alternatives may face inadequate hydration, reduced cooking water use, and higher exposure to plasticizers from bottle materials. Children in these households may have worse access to fluoridated water. The public health consequences of distrust are real and extend well beyond the initial contamination event that caused it.
Infrastructure politics and the way forward
Aging infrastructure, limited maintenance budgets, and institutional inertia have created a system where vulnerability accumulates slowly and invisibly until a crisis makes it visible. Federal investment in water infrastructure has increased in recent years through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, but researchers tracking water insecurity emphasize that funding alone will not resolve problems rooted in fragmented governance, inadequate monitoring systems, and the absence of metrics that capture what communities actually experience.
The ASU panel at AAAS represents one part of a larger effort to build the evidence base needed to make water insecurity in the United States legible to policymakers and the public. Without nationally comparable metrics, the true scope of the problem remains invisible in the data that drive decisions.