Spatial inequality in water access in the US: case studies and solutions

While the majority of 400 million Americans take water for granted, approximately 2.2 million people in the United States of America (US) lack access to safe water and sanitation (DIGDEEP 2022). Millions more struggle to pay water bills, experiencing frequent shut-offs for non-payment. According to a landmark 2019 study, ‘water access issues affect lower-income, minority, undocumented, and non-English speaking population disproportionately – all groups that are considered Hard to Count (HTC) populations and are underrepresented in the census’ (DIGDEEP & US Water Alliance 2021). Access is linked not only to income, race, and immigration status, but also to where people live and the type of housing they inhabit. Due to historic disparities in infrastructure investment, rural areas and tribal lands face disproportionate hurdles to gaining access to water and plumbing (Marcillo & Krometis 2019).¹ Native Americans face the highest rates of ‘plumbing poverty’ – the absence of complete plumbing in their homes (Deitz & Meehan 2019). In addition to tribal households, residents of manufactured homes (sometimes known as mobile homes), or those who spend a large portion of their income on rent, are more likely to lack access and face service shut-offs (Meehan et al. 2020). Households in unincorporated areas or informal housing are left to self-provide because they fall outside any administrative or service jurisdiction (VanDerslice 2011; Yeung 2012). Unhoused populations in most cities face tremendous challenges in accessing even the most basic services, especially a safe and clean bathroom (Avelar Portillo et al. 2023).

In the last decade, there have been several notable cases of failing water infrastructure jeopardizing human health and safety at a large scale. Residents of Flint, Michigan, were exposed to high concentrations of lead in their tap water when city authorities, facing bankruptcy and a takeover by the state, switched water sources to save money. Despite public complaints about the water, authorities denied the problem existed until citizens organized and found allies in local media and scientists (Clark & Maney 2024). While the water quality has improved, citizen health and their trust in their government were permanently harmed. In Pritchard, Alabama, the main streets have been flooded, sometimes for weeks, while households struggle to get sufficient water into their homes and utility workers try to keep up with a network of shut-off valves and pipes that is way past its operational life (ECWQ 2024). In Jackson, Mississippi, more than 150,000 people were left without water in 2021 and again in 2022, in the sweltering heat (Fowler 2024). It is not a coincidence that Flint, Pritchard, and Jackson have majority African American populations, and all three have seen decades of underinvestment. But the fate of these cities could change: In 2021, the US government authorized $550 billion in new infrastructure including $50 billion for water, making it the largest federal investment in water in the nation's history (APHA 2024; USEPA 2024a). Through this landmark Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the US government provided the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) $US 50 billion (about $150 per person in the US) for improvements to drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure. Acknowledging that the burdens of pollution, crumbling infrastructure, and climate change fall disproportionately on certain communities, the administration also required that ‘40% of the overall benefits of certain federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized, underserved, and overburdened by pollution’ (The White House 2022). This 40% funding set aside specifically for disadvantaged communities can be used for principal or debt forgiveness, making it possible for smaller communities to emerge from indebtedness.

In addition to the EPA appropriation, funds for making water investments are also available through other federal agencies including the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Energy, among others. The investments are intended to make drinking water safer, water and sewer services more widely available, and improve affordability for those who have struggled to pay rising bills.

Most, but not all, of the water infrastructure funding is disbursed through the EPA administered State Revolving Funds (SRF) – both the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF).^2,3 The EPA conducts a Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment and allocates funds to states based on a formula using data from this survey. States provide a 20% match and these resources are put into a revolving fund that makes loans to service providers. All service providers eligible to apply for SRF funding, regardless of size, must complete a similar application. In addition, new competitive grants are also available to providers, for example, through the Small, Underserved, and Disadvantaged Communities Grant Program, which also saw funding increase from $25.8 million (2021) to $5 billion (2022–2026) (Hansen & Hammer 2022).

Unfortunately, for small, disadvantaged communities and under-resourced providers, the funding pot may have expanded but their ability to tap into it remains the same (USEPA 2023a). In this practice note, the authors present illustrative cases from two such communities – one urban and one rural – that have struggled with water and wastewater services. The first is the city of Gary, Indiana, located in the heart of the US, and the second is a rural community of migrant agricultural workers in Eastern Coachella Valley, California (USEPA 2023b). The cases describe each community's infrastructure challenges, the resources they need, and the roadblocks they face in obtaining and using those resources. The note also describes the actions taken by one technical assistance provider, Moonshot Missions, to assist smaller and underinvested communities take actions that could help them secure grants and prepare SRF funding applications. The discussion section reflects on the persistent structural challenges to dealing with spatial inequity in access, and paths forward.

In November 2021, acknowledging that small and underserved communities need assistance to prepare applications, prioritize, and plan investments, the EPA announced that it will fund 29 Environmental Finance Centers (EFCs) to provide technical assistance to states, tribes, and local governments to help communities develop and submit project proposals, including SRF applications (USEPA 2024b).

Moonshot Missions (hereafter referred to as Moonshot), a non-government organization (NGO), is a recipient of EPA funds as an EFC. It is also a member of several coalitions of technical providers who are utilizing federal and philanthropic funding to help utilities at no charge to improve their operations so that they may become eligible for EPA funds. Moonshot is staffed by engineers, experienced water and wastewater operators, and utility managers who can help find solutions to financial and engineering problems. It helps communities and service providers to prioritize problems, understand short- and longer-term capital needs, and collaboratively identifies appropriate sources of funding for those priorities. It also helps smaller communities to complete all the requirements for grant applications, which are exhaustive and complicated, and may include inventories of assets, management plants, and tariff studies (Moonshot Missions 2024).

Gary, Indiana, and Eastern Coachella Valley, California, are two among many communities with which Moonshot is working. Other EFCs are similarly engaged throughout the US. While every community is unique, the lessons learned in these two underinvested communities are broadly applicable to many thousands of others also struggling with similar challenges throughout the US.

Coachella Valley exemplifies how place-based discrimination can create stark disparities in water access for residents. Local laws and policies have spatially concentrated water poverty in Eastern Coachella Valley farmworker communities while securing abundant water access for settlers and agricultural and tourism industries in the western parts of the valley (Bremner 2022).

Farm workers living in unincorporated areas in small manufactured home parks (locally called Polanco Parks) generally lack access to fundamental public services and infrastructure like sewer systems and clean water. A local law allows the formation of such parks and so long as they have no more than 12 dwellings, they are exempt from business taxes, local registration fees, and conditional use permits. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) water utility provides service to a large area of the valley. While many Polanco Parks fall within the CVWD's service area, they are not connected to the utility's potable water system. The existing water infrastructure in these areas consists of private wells that are deteriorating due to a lack of preventative maintenance; some are even contaminated by arsenic and fluoride (Soldavini et al. 2023). Since neither the wells nor the water systems are owned by a registered authority, it has been difficult, if not impossible, to receive state or federal funding for improvements or consolidation with CVWD.

Manufactured home communities in rural Eastern Coachella Valley are now receiving valuable support through a collaborative effort by CVWD, Moonshot ,and local NGO Pueblo Unido CDC funded through EPA. The effort has resulted in the formulation of a CVWD-led master plan that could consolidate the manufactured home communities (Polanco Parks) into CVWD's regulated water system, so that they may gain reliable access to safe drinking water supply services. In the short term, the technical providers have taken actions to ensure that the communities' wells/water systems operate efficiently and reliably until their consolidation with the CVWD. However, because each Polanco Park has been run independently, Moonshot has been working with a subset to evaluate if they would be interested in consolidating into CVWD's potable water system. This has included a comprehensive assessment of the communities' water infrastructure, operations, and management practices to identify critical needs. Moonshot and Pueblo Unido CDC are working with both CVWD and these communities to understand their perspectives on integrating and building trust between parties who have not collaborated in the past. They are also partnering to secure state funding to address immediate infrastructure needs, and helping CVWD with documentation for a grant application.

With a population of nearly 69,739, Gary is a legacy city that was once the home of US Steel's largest mill, and a symbol of American innovation. Since the 1960s, however, Gary has seen economic decline and lost almost half of its population (Nerkar 2024). Gary's median household income of $34,085 is significantly lower than the national average of $68,700. About 60% of Gary's predominantly non-white population (90% people of color) earns less than or close to half the federal poverty level. A shrinking industrial base and population loss have reduced the number of commercial and residential ratepayers. This led to a decline in the utility's financial ability to keep up with required maintenance and replacement of the aging infrastructure. Not only can the utility not borrow commercially, but it is also not well placed to receive SRF funds, a portion of which must be repaid with very low interest.

Gary was founded in 1906 as an industry town by the world's first billion-dollar corporation – US Steel, taking its name from the Chairman of that firm. It drew African Americans from Southern States, but racist housing laws segregated these workers to only certain parts of the city. These same laws also made it impossible for African Americans to secure loans to improve housing, and as neighborhoods fell into disrepair, White homeowners fled to suburban areas. By the 1960s, when steel production began declining, Gary had become a predominantly black city (Rapoport 2014). As population declined, and poverty and unemployment rose, the city was unable to invest in maintaining or upgrading essential infrastructure, including its water systems. To address critical deteriorations in water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer infrastructure, Gary will have to increase the efficacy of the existing systems and make significant investment in its water infrastructure.⁵ The city is currently looking at a 13% rate increase over 3 years to cover the increasing operating costs and accommodate for the infrastructure upgrade. While necessary for funding improvements, this rate hike will make services unaffordable to Gary's low-income population.

Through a grant provided by the Great Lakes Protection Fund for water quality protection in the Great Lakes watershed, Moonshot is providing ‘no cost’ technical assistance to the city of Gary. Due to the financial constraints faced by the city and the utility, this work focuses on developing a comprehensive fund development strategy to help Gary secure funding in the short term and help bridge the gap in technical and administrative capabilities for the long term. Specifically, technical assistance is necessary to help Gary prepare a project prioritization framework factoring in potential environmental benefits and major demographic and socioeconomic vulnerability indexes. The first step was creating a comprehensive guidance document to match existing funding opportunities with Gary's capital project list. Moonshot then helped the city build partnerships with regional and national community-based organizations who could both apply for grants and implement projects. To position Gary to apply for larger federal funds, Moonshot is acting as an intermediary and facilitating communication between Gary and state and federal government agencies, helping the local agencies to understand the funding agencies' expectations, convey community needs and priorities to state agencies, and ensure that Gary's application aligns with state objectives. Lastly, Moonshot is providing much needed step-by-step guidance on proposal scoping and grant application preparation. This includes helping the local government to understand application requirements, assisting with necessary documents, and ensuring that all relevant information is included.

This practice note focuses on those areas where many households lack access to regular, safe, and affordable water services not only because of socioeconomic characteristics but also because of where they live. Clustering of poor services is clearly racialized in both Gary and Eastern Coachella, but there are additional confounding reasons for lack of access and affordability. Gary faces a declining population, lower tax collection, and an unduly high tariff burden of managing wastewater treatment and disposal costs. Monthly charges to households represent not just the cost of maintaining an aging system set up to serve a larger population, but also new costs of compliance imposed by regulatory agencies. This scenario is not unique to Gary. Many cities in the US face similar predicaments. Industrial disinvestment and insufficient new growth revenue have left them with infrastructure that is overbuilt for current needs. Rate hikes are necessary to ensure that utilities can fund needed improvements but steep increases are challenging for already cost-burdened households.

While services are also unaffordable and inaccessible in Eastern Coachella Valley, the spatial determinants of inequitable access are quite different. Unlike Gary, many families in Eastern Coachella live in unincorporated communities that lack access to formal water service provision. The problems they face are common to all households who fall outside any service providers' jurisdiction, or are simply too remote to make investments in infrastructure for water delivery. Manufactured homes, for example, typically receive water supply from private wells and utilize septic systems for wastewater disposal. System maintenance costs are usually passed on to households through rent. However, due to the small number of customers, this revenue may be insufficient to properly maintain or upgrade systems. In addition, the private owners of these water systems are ineligible for state or federal assistance from revolving funds, as there needs to be an established legal entity like a water district or a limited liability company for such funding to go toward, even if it is a grant. Private well owners may borrow at commercial rates from local banks if they are deemed creditworthy. This is an option for well-funded, large operators, but smaller ones who may be family owned and operated cannot bear such commercial risk. For the poorest communities, like those comprising mainly undocumented farmworkers of whom there are almost 800,000 in California, seeking any kind of official assistance is out of the question. Many of the workers speak little English, and fear of being deported forces them to accept low wages, poor housing conditions, and terrible to no services (Gross 2023).

The cases of Gary and Eastern Coachella Valley highlight why accessing and using government funds is challenging for under-resourced communities. Some service providers may not have the capacity or the expertise necessary to navigate complex funding mechanisms. Even if they manage to access subsidized funding through a state or federal community revolving fund, they need substantial technical assistance to improve efficiency and manage assets for the long term. Furthermore, funding typically does not include provisions for ongoing operations and maintenance expenses. Utilities with a small customer base or those serving large numbers of low-income households have few options but to raise rates, further burdening their customers.

Technical assistance providers serve as a conduit for federal dollars to go to communities that have faced historic underinvestment. They work at no cost with service providers who struggle to navigate lengthy application processes, lack the capacity to secure and manage larger-scale projects on their own, and undertake steep rate hikes to finance loans. Although it does not solve the long-term problem of funding operation and maintenance, this intermediary approach allows for a more responsive and targeted deployment of resources, bridging the gap between available funding streams and the pressing needs on the ground.

While the current financial infusion into water infrastructure is clearly much needed and commendable, government funding goals and requirements are still misaligned. The intent of many funding programs is to assist disadvantaged or under-resourced communities, but the eligibility criteria inadvertently exclude the very communities these programs aim to assist. Applications are complex and largely restricted to state agencies, non-profits, or other legal entities with resources to comply with complicated requirements. To address this gap, federal and state governments should expand their eligibility criteria and establish dedicated funding streams or application processes tailored specifically for smaller, informal, and historically underinvested communities.

In addition, structural challenges to affordability and access must be addressed. Local, state, and federal governments can adopt income-based water and sewer rates, shut-off protections, and expand customer assistance programs that can be administered even by the smallest service providers. Policy analysts studying SRF use have suggested that ‘states should revise their policies if necessary to allow and encourage communities to use SRF funds to adopt affordability measures and then provide those that take these steps with favorable loan terms and project prioritization bonus points’ (Hansen & Hammer 2022).

The remaining challenge of ensuring universal access to safe and affordable services must focus on examining the assumption that all customers, irrespective of where they live, and the resources they have at their disposal, should pay full cost of the services they receive. For those who live in cities that are rapidly losing populations, in remote rural areas now facing the onslaughts of climate change, on tribal lands in harsh landscapes, or in temporary housing outside of municipal limits, these expectations can only lead to exclusion and inequitable access.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.