Water violation scores by U.S county. Scores represent percentiles; thus, counties in the highest percentile ranking have a water violation score higher than 85.8% of all other counties in the United States. Credit: Segrè Cohen, A., Slavik, C. E., Kurani, S., & Árvai, J. (2025). Mapping risks of water injustice and perceptions of privatized drinking water in the United States: a mixed methods approach. Risk Analysis, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.70012
About 2 million people in the United States do not have access to running water or indoor plumbing in their homes. In addition, 30 million more Americans live where drinking water systems violate safety rules.
Water privatization has been proposed as both a solution to and an exacerbator of these challenges, but its potential consequences had not been investigated on a national scale. Researchers at the University of Oregon led a team to do just that in a new study that is the first to integrate geospatial mapping of water violations, social vulnerability, and perceptions of water access in relation to public versus private ownership of water systems.
The results indicated that water system violations were not randomly distributed across the United States and risks of exposure to water injustice appeared to cluster in certain locations as hotspots. Clusters of water system violations were associated with private water system ownership. However, hotspots of water injustice were more often surrounded by counties with low proportions of privately owned water systems than counties with high proportions.
The highs and lows of water violations
The study, published in Risk Analysis, used data from a total of 507,492 facilities that make up of 48,690 community water systems located in the contiguous United States. Of the 3090 U.S. counties analyzed, 643 counties were identified as significant hotspots of water system violations, with clustering present in several states—especially West Virginia and Pennsylvania.
For example, the top 10 counties and states with the highest ranking for water violations were:
- Wyoming, W.V.
- Boone, W.V.
- Mercer, W.V.
- Potter, Penn.
- Caswell, N.C.
- Tioga, Pennsylvania
- Cameron, Penn.
- Somerset, Penn.
- Person, N.C.
- Pottawatomie, Okla.
Three counties—Lynchburg, Virginia; Florence, Wisconsin; and Sterling, Texas—reported zero violations. Meanwhile, three other counties in Virginia were among the top 10 lowest rankling for water violations, in addition to Pasquotank, N.C., Broomfield, Colo., Menard, Texas, and Walsh, N.D.
When examining water injustice scores—the researchers define water injustice as the unequal access to safe and clean drinking water that disproportionately impacts low-income households and people of color—similar hotspot clustering was found.
For example, eight counties in Mississippi were among the highest water injustice scores in the country, with only Buffalo, S.D. (No. 3) and Presidio, Texas (No. 7) being out of state. The counties with the lowest water injustice scores in ascending order were located in Virginia (4), Minnesota (2), Nebraska, Colorado, New Mexico and Kentucky.
Perceptions of water vulnerability
In addition to examining water violations, water injustice and water systems spatial mapping, the study authors also focused on perceptions of water vulnerability and how these perceptions change based on ownership (public vs private) of the systems.
“There is a lack of research documenting the impacts of system ownership on water injustice metrics, and little is known about how people in these unjust areas feel about their water and who owns and operates their water systems,” write the authors. “This is a crucial part of the decision-making process, as community participation is key in enacting policies that aid communities in overcoming environmental hazards and burdens.”
The study found that living in a county with both high water injustice and a higher proportion of privatized water systems is associated with greater concern or perception of vulnerability around water access and security.
As the proportion of private systems in participants’ counties increases, those with low water injustice scores perceive a higher degree of water vulnerability. This pattern was reversed for participants with high water injustice scores; their perceived water vulnerability was higher when they lived in counties with a higher proportion of public water systems rather than private ones.
“Our results suggest that privatization alone is not a solution,” says lead author Alex Segrè Cohen, assistant professor of science and risk communication at the University of Oregon. “The local context, such as regulatory enforcement, community vulnerability and community priorities, matters in determining outcomes.”
Private vs public
Supporters of water system privatization argue that private firms operate more efficiently than the government, resulting in faster resource access. They also say governments could save money by shifting construction and maintenance costs to private firms. Another argument in favor of privatization is that private companies specializing in water infrastructure could improve water access and safety by leveraging their expertise. They may also have stronger incentives to follow regulations than governments to avoid fines and penalties for non-compliance.
However, a majority of people across the U.S. oppose water privatization. They argue that private companies might prioritize profits over public needs, potentially jeopardizing widespread access to water. This goes hand in hand with the potential for private companies to escalate the costs of providing high-quality drinking water—making water out of reach for lower income individuals and worsening water scarcity and injustice. In general, public water systems are far better equipped to ensure access for low-income and marginalized individuals.