Drinkable water is a vital resource that is often owned and maintained by local governments in the United States. To gain a better understanding of the current state of potable water quality, we at CivicPulse asked local elected officials to tell us how concerned they are about the quality of drinking water in their communities. The survey was conducted in partnership with Professor Manny Teodoro at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Professor David Switzer at the University of Missouri.
“Extremely aged and defective,” is how one mayor of a municipality serving approximately 4,000 people in Colorado described their water infrastructure. In fact, many water pipes across America are more than fifty years old and nearing the end of their lifespans. One council member from a municipality in Utah serving almost 100,000 people told us that their community has “pipes that are 100 years old.”
To better understand the extent to which we should be worried about the state of America’s potable drinking water, we asked local officials to tell us more about the concerns they have for their community’s water source. Nearly half (46%) of local policymakers are very or somewhat concerned about the quality of drinking water in their communities.
Nearly half (46%) of local policymakers are very or somewhat concerned about the quality of drinking water in their communities.
In addition to aging infrastructure, contaminants raised red flags for public officials. A council member from a New Jersey municipality serving approximately 30,000 people conveyed that they are “particularly concerned about microplastics, which are not screened or treated for in our water supply.”
Equally as insidious as microplastics are per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS, aka "forever chemicals"), which the U.S Government Accountability Office called one of the biggest challenges to water since lead. Local leaders responding to our survey likewise expressed concern about the effects these forever chemicals have on their communities. As the supervisor from an Arizona county serving more than 200,000 people explained, forever chemicals are, “difficult to detect and correct.”
Apprehension over potable water quality in local communities was voiced nearly equally by Republican (48%), Independent (45%), and Democratic (45%) policymakers (see below).

CivicPulse’s findings on this issue indicate greater bipartisanship among elected officials on this issue as compared to the general public. Indeed, among the American public, Democrats have tended to express far more worry about drinking water quality than Republicans.
But the state of America’s water quality isn’t all doom and gloom. As a council member from a municipality in California serving more than 100,000 people stated, “I am on the water board and I know we have excellent water quality here, we invest a great deal in it.”
And many communities are now investing in improving their water infrastructure across the country. For example, an elected official from a town serving approximately 1,000 people in Michigan told us “significant improvements have been made, and monitoring and surveys continue.”
Some of these improvements even take worst-case scenarios into account. For example, a municipality in Oregon serving approximately 30,000 residents has “already added gradual rate changes in anticipation and initiation of our water infrastructure plan and needed updates. The health of our connection pipe, especially if there were to be a Cascadia event,” according to a councillor.
Despite progress being made in some communities, much more is needed to ensure the safety and modernization of America’s potable water supply. Local policymakers representing smaller and poorer communities exhibited concern that improving water quality is cost prohibitive. A council member from a community serving around 2,000 residents in Ohio shared, “it is so expensive to replace mains, upgrade water plants, etc. that small villages like ours have difficulty funding these projects.”
Even where federal or state assistance has occurred, upkeep costs can inhibit progress. Nearly two decades ago, a town in Michigan serving around 5,000 people installed a municipal sewer under state requirements. Today, that sewer is, according to one of the town’s elected board members, “a financial burden to most, and has resulted in a number of families having to move because they can't afford to stay.”
To successfully resolve America’s aging water infrastructure, the financial barrier to making such investments in these communities will need to be addressed. Programs like this one from the Environmental Protection Association (EPA) could help reduce contaminants in small or disadvantaged communities. If upgrades are not made, more communities will find themselves sympathizing with the Michigan official who lamented, “everyone talks about the problem, but because the community is poor, nothing is done about it.”
Survey background
This research brief uses data from a nationally representative survey of local elected policymakers in U.S. townships, municipalities, and county governments serving communities of 1,000 or more. Elected policymakers include top elected officials (e.g., mayor, county executive) and governing board members (e.g., council member, county legislator). The survey was fielded from October 2024 to November 2024. 671 local officials completed the survey.
Survey text
Which of the following best describes how you feel about the quality of drinking water in your community? Response options: Very concerned about water quality, somewhat concerned about water quality, not too concerned about water quality, not at all concerned about water quality
If you would like to add additional context you may do so below.
Press Contact
Victoria Starbuck
Senior Research and Communications Associate
Additional Resources
For access to the underlying data for this brief, email us at info@civicpulse.org.