- Small community households report a mean willingness to pay forty-nine dollars per month.
- Concern about water shortages strongly influences support for reuse.
- Prior experience with reuse increases willingness to pay.
- Study suggests reuse could be financially sustainable for many small systems.
Tuesday, December 9, 2025 — A national research team released findings on November 17, 2025 that shed new light on how residents of small communities view the future of recycled water. The study, published yesterday in Water Resources Research
, explores how much households in rural areas are willing to pay for water reuse programs designed to reduce the risk of water shortages. It draws on a sample of more than 2,000 respondents living in communities with fewer than 10,000 people.
Researchers Jacqueline Morley, Todd Guilfoos, Sadaf Mehrabi, Yu Wang, and Kaoru Ikuma used a contingent valuation survey, a method commonly used in environmental economics to understand what people would pay for improvements in natural resources. In this case, households were asked whether they would support a monthly fee for a local water reuse program if that program helped the community avoid future water restrictions.
Across the full sample, the average household was willing to pay $49.00 per month in addition to its current bill. According to the authors, this figure represents a meaningful level of support and reflects the value many rural residents place on water reliability.
Experience and Water Scarcity Concerns Matter.
The study found substantial differences in willingness to pay depending on the respondent’s past exposure to recycled water and their level of concern about water shortages.
Respondents with prior experience with water reuse reported an average willingness to pay of approximately $62 per month. Those with no experience reported a much lower value of about $38. Concern over drought played a similar role. Respondents reporting extreme concern about water shortages were willing to pay about $71 per month, while those who were not concerned were willing to pay about $32.
These differences suggest that community awareness efforts, public education, and transparent information about how water reuse works may shape the long-term success of reuse programs in rural places.
Little Difference Among Water Sources.
Households in the survey were randomly assigned one of four potential water reuse sources: rainwater, stormwater, agricultural runoff, or wastewater. Although perceptions of these sources often differ, the study found only minor variations in willingness to pay among them. Wastewater produced slightly higher values, which the authors suggest may be due to people assuming it requires more treatment before reuse. Still, the differences were not significant enough to draw firm conclusions about the sources.
Financial Feasibility for Small Systems.
One of the most important questions for rural water managers is whether water reuse can be sustained financially in systems that lack the economies of scale found in large cities. The study compares willingness-to-pay results with typical operating and maintenance costs for water reuse in small treatment plants.
Operating costs for non-potable reuse in small facilities generally range from 13 cents to 28 cents per cubic meter. Even after converting household willingness-to-pay estimates into annualized water-use estimates, the authors find that most reuse systems would fall well within the financial capacity suggested by household responses. Only the most expensive potable reuse scenarios would exceed the potential revenue implied by the survey results.
The authors caution that capital costs for new treatment infrastructure can be substantial. Rural communities may require outside support or grants to construct the facilities, even if ongoing operating costs can be covered by ratepayers.
Why This Matters.
Across the United States, especially in the interior West and parts of the South, small communities continue to face declining groundwater levels, drought pressure, and concerns about supply reliability. This new research provides one of the clearest national views of how rural residents weigh the costs and benefits of recycled water.
The findings suggest that if a community expects future shortages, its residents may be more open to reuse programs than previously assumed. For local decision-makers, the study offers a data-driven perspective on how households value water reliability and the level of monthly charge many would consider acceptable.
Implications for the Future.
As climate variability grows and rural water systems seek sustainable options to bolster supply, recycled water may become a more common component of local planning. The study indicates that in many small communities, the financial foundation for reuse programs could be viable, particularly where residents are concerned about scarcity and already familiar with recycling water.
Public communication may also play a central role. The research points to higher support among those who understand the process or have seen it used successfully. Communities considering water reuse may benefit from early educational outreach, transparent discussion of treatment standards, and clear explanations of long-term benefits such as drought resilience, improved water quality, and reduced pressure on aquifers.
Citation.
Morley, J., Guilfoos, T., Mehrabi, S., Wang, Y., & Ikuma, K. (2025). Willingness to pay for water reuse in small communities in the United States. Water Resources Research, 61, e2025WR040116. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025WR040116
