Environmental Reviews & Case Studies: More Cost per Drop: Water Rates, Structural Inequality, and Race in the United States—The Case of Michigan

Abstract

While much of the environmental justice literature has focused on exposure to environmental contaminants, this article argues that access to environmental goods should be explored, as well. We do this by looking at the rates paid for drinking and wastewater infrastructure in the United States (US). Although US residents, in aggregate, pay very little for water and sewer (around 1% of household income), the rate varies significantly by place (with Chicago residents paying roughly one fourth of the rates of residents in Atlanta, for instance). We ask whether particular groups may disproportionately pay higher rates. Using census data, we compare the cost of water and sewer across counties in Michigan and find tremendous disparity in reported expenditure. We then use multivariate regression analysis to investigate the relationship among income, urbanicity, race, and cost of water and sewer. Our findings indicate that a higher reported cost of water and sewer is associated most strongly with minority racial status. This results from postindustrial divestment and subsequent depopulation of particular urban areas. As a result, decreased demand (fewer households remaining in the city) actually increases prices (per remaining household), since water infrastructure costs are fixed, and this phenomenon disproportionately disadvantages people of color—who make up the majority of the great industrial cities.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the USDA Hatch Fund (MICL02187 0217213), the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station (now the Michigan State University AgBioResearch), and the Department of Sociology for financing much of the research done to carry out this project. We also thank the following researchers for their contributions to this initiative: Nan Johnson, who provided critical guidance during the development of this project, Elise Benveniste, and Tyler Augst, who provided key research expertise during this project. We further would like to acknowledge the technical assistance of MSU reference librarian Haley Mooney for support in the development of the figure in this article.

Notes

Notes

1. This percentage is calculated by dividing the estimated number of households served domestic water through self-supply (1.12 million) by the 2009 census estimate of number of occupied household units (4,541,680).

2. The private water industry argues that their efficiencies diminish the other costs so that costs to consumer are improved (Seidenstat, Haarmeyer, and Hakim, 2002).

3. The 2000 US Census was released in Summary Files that contained the tabulated data from the census of that year. Summary Files 1 and 2 contain information from the Short-Form questionnaire that was delivered to all US households. Summary Files 3 and 4 contain data from the Long-Form census questionnaire, delivered to one in six households. For more information, see US Bureau of Census (2000c).