Sports · Asia Post
If you’ve noticed your water bills are getting a lot more expensive, you’re not alone. In a new nationwide survey of 500 large drinking water utilities, researchers found that average water bills have gone up 1.6 times faster than inflation, and Californians are paying some of the highest bills. The report by Food & Water Watch, a nonprofit advocacy group, shows that four water utilities in California rank among the top 10 most expensive in the United States.
The private utility San Jose Water Co. was No. 1, while others included Escondido, Santa Barbara and Marin Municipal Water District. The researchers also found that more than half of the 25 most expensive water systems they looked at are in California. They include San José (11), San Francisco (14), Sacramento (15) and Oceanside (19), which the researchers said charged bills totaling more than $1,100 last year for typical indoor water usage for a household of three.
Los Angeles ranked 32 of 500, with the annual water bill estimated at $952. “California is definitely overrepresented as one of the more expensive states,” said Mary Grant, the group’s water policy director. “Water affordability is a pressing issue for low-income households.” Coastal cities in Southern California and the Bay Area tend to get their water from the aqueducts of the State Water Project or other systems that pump and transport river water long distances, which is expensive.
Santa Barbara also has a desalination plant . The group compared water bills in 2025 to 2015, focusing on a standard amount of indoor water use. It didn’t consider water for landscaping.
Over the last decade, the bills charged by 91 California water utilities increased by 83% on average, the researchers said. Last year, the average bill was $693. Karla Nemeth, executive director of the Assn. of California Water Agencies, said there are many pressures driving water rates up in California, including “aging infrastructure, inefficient permitting processes, and a lack of sustainable state and federal investment.” San Jose Water Co., which serves about 1 million customers, disputed the group’s findings, saying it used “erroneously aggregated data to perform an analysis that grabs headlines.” It said data from the California Public Utilities Commission show it’s not the highest-cost water utility in the state.
Since 2021, San Jose Water has invested more than $1 billion in infrastructure including pipes, pumps and plants. The utility said 42% of what customers pay is a “mandated pass-through to our water wholesaler, Valley Water, which we have no control over.” The National Assn. of Water Cos. also took issue with the report , saying that comparing rates for the largest 1% of water systems paints an incomplete and misleading picture, and that people shouldn’t draw “broad conclusions from unvalidated, raw rate comparisons.” The researchers found that for-profit corporate water utilities charged 67% more than the government-owned systems they analyzed nationwide — an additional $329 a year on average. In California, municipal utilities face constraints in raising rates under Proposition 218 , a ballot initiative passed in 1996 that says fees must reflect the costs of providing service.
Prop 218 does not apply to for-profit water companies, which must seek approval for rate increases from the California Public Utilities Commission. In its report, Food & Water Watch urged state and local governments to ban privatization of water utilities. It called for the federal government to provide more financial support to improve aging water infrastructure and help keep costs in check.
“Water rates are going up nationwide in every corner of the country,” Grant said. “And water systems need federal support to make necessary improvements to keep water safe and resilient in the face of climate change, without pricing households out of service.” Last week, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have helped low-income Californians pay rising water bills using public funds.
Newsom said in his veto message that he couldn’t support creating a permanent water rate assistance program “without identifying a sustainable, ongoing funding source.” Michael Claiborne, an attorney at the nonprofit Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, said while the governor’s veto was disappointing, “it will not halt the momentum generated this year toward a consensus policy that can help make water more affordable for all Californians.” More to Read
Source: Los Angeles Times
