Why some Arizona communities don’t drink tap water — even when it’s safe
A water vending station near Yuma, Arizona. Even with access to piped drinking water, some people prefer to purchase water. Photo by Arizona Water for All/ASU
In a small Arizona community, millions of dollars were spent upgrading a drinking water system to meet federal safety standards. Residents were relieved to learn their water was now safe.
But many still didn’t drink it.
The disconnect between water that is safe and water people actually trust and use is at the center of new research from Arizona State University.
Connecting households to centralized, municipal water systems has long been a cornerstone of water policy. But in some places, that goal is colliding with a more complex reality: Access does not necessarily translate into use.
Instead, some households in the Southwestern U.S. choose not to connect to piped systems at all, even when they are readily available, instead relying on private wells or informal networks of neighbors and family. Others are connected, but drink only bottled or hauled water.
At first glance, those choices can seem counterintuitive. But Arizona State University researchers Patrick Thomson and Amber Wutich, both with the School of Human Evolution and Social Change, say they reflect a broader set of factors.
“It’s not just about safety,” Thomson said. “It’s also about perception and trust, which are intertwined.”
After years of studying water insecurity in the United States and globally, their work shows that water access is shaped as much by lived experience as it is by infrastructure.
Through the Arizona Water for All program, a pillar of the Arizona Water Innovation Initiative at ASU’s Julie Ann Wrigley Global Futures Laboratory, in collaboration with the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering, the researchers have been examining these dynamics in the Southwest.
They describe the pattern as “piped water skepticism,” in which some households distrust or reject available municipal systems.
Choices rooted in experience
In many frameworks, households that avoid municipal systems are described as “coping” with limited access. But in a recent article by Thomson and Wutich, they suggest something more deliberate.
Residents weigh multiple factors, including perceived water quality and long-term affordability. Some express discomfort with government oversight or metering, while others value independence from centralized systems. In that context, relying on alternative sources is not a last resort. It can be a deliberate, informed decision.
“It’s very easy to see these choices as irrational,” Thomson said. “But when you understand the context people are living in, they can actually make a lot of sense.”
Even when people are reassured their water is safe, they often do not change their behavior.
“What we hear is, ‘It’s good to know I can drink it if I need to — but I’ll still use bottled water,’” Thomson said.
Rather than judging these choices, the research focuses on understanding when they may carry consequences, particularly for households facing higher costs for alternative water sources.
Rethinking water solutions in practice
For Thomson and Wutich, these findings raise important questions about how water challenges are addressed. Their work uses participatory methods that prioritize listening to communities and taking their perspectives seriously, including when those perspectives differ from expert expectations.
Ignoring those perspectives, they argue, risks reinforcing mistrust and reducing the effectiveness of interventions. This is particularly relevant as many strategies focus on consolidating smaller systems into larger, centralized ones. While these approaches can offer technical efficiencies, they may not align with how all communities understand risk.
Taken together, these findings challenge the assumption that centralized systems are always the end goal. These insights can be challenging for the water sector to incorporate, as they run counter to long-standing assumptions that expanding centralized infrastructure will naturally lead to use.
“If we don’t understand why people make the choices they do,” Thomson said, “we may design solutions that look good on paper but don’t work in practice.”
Why it matters in Arizona
In Arizona, where water systems face increasing strain, these insights have practical implications. Skepticism toward piped systems could complicate efforts to expand infrastructure and affect the long-term sustainability of utilities. At the same time, overlooking these dynamics risks building systems that function technically but fail to gain public trust or change how water is used.
Thomson and Wutich’s work suggests that addressing water challenges requires more than engineering solutions. It calls for engaging communities as partners and taking the reasoning behind their choices seriously.
The implications extend beyond Arizona and the Southwest. Improving water security, the researchers say, starts with understanding people, not just providing pipes.
“The Arizona Water for All team is working to center communities as partners in shaping water solutions,” Wutich said. “That means recognizing that trust and local context are just as important as infrastructure when it comes to achieving lasting water security.”
More Environment and sustainability
ASU grad builds bridges between research and action amid ongoing crises
From economic collapse to the COVID-19 pandemic to intensified military action, Lebanon has faced overlapping crises with insufficient humanitarian aid. Bruno Atieh, a Lebanese student, has…
Phoenix is getting hotter, but ASU is exploring ways to help
As Phoenix continues to break heat records year after year, it raises concerns that in 30 to 50 years, the area will no longer be habitable.But Matei Georgescu is optimistic.Georgescu…
Why Payson is the perfect home for an outdoor education hub
Tom Fraker nodded in the direction of the busiest street corner in Payson, the intersection of State Routes 87 and 260.“More than 6 million people drive through that corner every year,” said Fraker,…