Should Water Be Free? — Should water be free?
I know. The easy answer is YES! Water is a natural resource. God put it here, so why should we have to
pay for it? Fair question. But before we start handing out free water, let’s talk about what it actually takes
to get that water into our homes.
As residents, we expect certain things. We expect to turn on the faucet and have water come out. We
expect that water to be safe to drink. We expect to take a shower, wash our clothes, cook dinner, and flush
the toilet without giving it a second thought. But do we ever stop to think about how that happens?
Probably not. And that’s the point.
For many South Suburban communities, the water coming out of our faucets is purchased from another
municipality, with Lake Michigan serving as the ultimate source. Now, we all know that some interesting
things happen at the lake. People throw things overboard, litter ends up in the water, and let’s just say not
every child makes it to the bathroom before deciding the lake will do just fine! Now, how many of us
would take a jug down to the shoreline, fill it up, and start drinking?
I’ll wait.
Exactly! We rely on water treatment plants to make that water safe for us to drink. And that process
doesn’t happen by magic. Water has to be treated, tested, and pumped through miles of underground pipes before it reaches your home. Treatment plants need equipment. Pumps need electricity. Employees need
to be paid. And when a water main breaks, somebody has to get out there and fix it. The water may be
free in nature, but getting it safely into your kitchen is another story.
When you receive your water bill, you’re not simply paying for the water itself. You’re helping cover the
cost of delivering it, treating it, maintaining the system, and keeping it operating. And those big water
towers with the name of your town painted across them? They aren’t just there to make the town look
official. They store water in case of an emergency. They also need maintenance. Those underground
pipes? They don’t last forever. That treatment plant? It needs repairs and upgrades. And those employees
working behind the scenes? Unfortunately, they cannot pay their mortgages with a thank-you note.
I’m just saying!
The cost of running these systems increases over time. Equipment gets more expensive. Electricity costs
money. Employees need wages and benefits. Infrastructure ages. And when communities need to replace
major sections of their water systems, those projects can cost millions of dollars. So, when residents ask
why water rates are increasing, that’s a legitimate question. They deserve an answer.
But we also have to ask whether the rates being charged are reasonable, whether the money is being
managed responsibly, and whether communities are planning for the future instead of waiting for
something to break.
But what about the people who can’t afford their water bills? Now we’re getting to the real conversation.
I understand why someone would say water should be free. Nobody should have to choose between
buying groceries and paying for water. Nobody should have to worry about whether they can take a
shower, wash their clothes, or prepare a meal because they’re behind on their bill. Water is essential.
Period. But making water free for everyone and helping people who cannot afford their bills are two
different conversations.
If we eliminate water bills, the cost of treating and delivering water doesn’t disappear. The employees still
need to be paid. The pipes still need repairs. The treatment plants still need to operate. So who pays?
Would we use tax dollars? Should state and federal governments provide more funding? Should utilities
offer reduced rates to households that meet certain income requirements? Could residents receive a basic
amount of water at a reduced cost, with charges for additional use?
These are questions worth exploring.
As someone who has worked in municipal government, I know money doesn’t grow on trees.
Hypothetically, if state and federal governments took over the cost of providing water, where would that
money come from? Tax revenue? And depending on how the program was structured, that could mean
higher taxes or other public spending trade-offs.
See, we may not pay for water one way, but we could end up paying for it another. So, does it really boil
down to how we feel about paying for the resource?
If a family is struggling, should we examine ways to help them maintain access to an essential service? If
a community’s infrastructure is deteriorating, should we be planning for repairs before we’re dealing with
an emergency?
Water is not a luxury. But neither is the infrastructure that delivers it.
We cannot expect safe, reliable water service while pretending the system can operate without funding. At
the same time, should we ignore families who genuinely struggle to afford their monthly bills?
We don’t need to wait until a water main breaks or a family loses access to water before deciding this
deserves our attention.
So, should water be free?
My question is this: If water is a basic necessity, should every household receive a certain amount at little
or no cost, with those who can afford it paying for additional use? Or should we focus on making water
affordable through assistance programs while ensuring the system is properly funded?
Because here’s what I know: Somebody has to pay for the water to be treated, delivered, and maintained.
The question is whether we’re distributing that cost fairly and managing it responsibly.
And if we’re going to have this conversation, let’s have all of it.
Not just the part about why we have to pay, but also the part about what happens when people can’t.
Should Water Be Free?
