Would you pay a pineapple a month for water reuse?
That is the blunt economic question emerging from new research published in Water Resources Research, which finds households served by small water systems are willing to pay an average of US$49 per month to support water reuse and avoid future restrictions. At current exchange rates, that equates to roughly AU$75 per household per month.
Translated into annual terms, that is approximately US$577, or about AU$860, per household.
For small systems often constrained by limited rate bases and high per-unit treatment costs, this figure is not symbolic. It is material.
- Want more information on what Inside Water is up to? Sign up for our weekly email, landing in inboxes with the latest news.
- Do you want the magazine delivered to your letterbox? Sign up here to subscribe.
A surprisingly strong willingness to pay
The study surveyed households in US communities served by systems with fewer than 10,000 connections. Using a contingent valuation approach, respondents were asked whether they would support a monthly surcharge on their water bill to fund a water reuse program.
Nearly 65 per cent said yes.
The mean willingness to pay was US$49 per month. That level exceeds many earlier international annual willingness-to-pay estimates.
For a sector accustomed to narratives about the “yuck factor” and ratepayer resistance, the scale of support is notable.
Why the framing matters
The survey did not present reuse as a generic environmental upgrade. It explicitly framed the investment as a way to avoid future water shortages and restrictions.
That framing appears decisive.
Linking reuse to reliability and restriction avoidance likely elevated the stated values. In practical terms, communities were not simply valuing recycled water. They were valuing continuity of supply.
For utilities, this has immediate implications. The economic case for reuse may be strengthened not just by engineering analysis, but by clearly articulating what is at risk without it.
Experience and scarcity shift the economics
The average masks significant variation.
Households with prior experience of water reuse were willing to pay approximately US$62 per month. Those without experience were willing to pay around US$38.
Similarly, respondents expressing extreme concern about water shortages were willing to pay more than US$71 per month, roughly double the amount reported by those with no concern.
These findings suggest that drought exposure and familiarity with reuse are not merely social indicators. They materially affect revenue potential.
For Australian utilities operating in climate-exposed regions, the implication is clear. Perceived water risk directly influences willingness to fund alternative supply.
Does AU$75 stack up against operating costs?
The research tests whether this willingness to pay is economically meaningful in operational terms.
Using benchmark operating and maintenance costs for non-potable reuse derived from wastewater treatment plants, the authors estimate that many small systems could cover O&M costs within the range implied by the stated willingness to pay.
Capital costs remain a significant hurdle. Upfront investment in small communities may still require a subsidy. However, from an operating perspective, the revenue potential appears viable in water-stressed contexts.
In short, a pineapple per month may not fund the entire asset lifecycle, but it could sustain the system once built.
Source stigma less influential than assumed
Respondents were randomly assigned different reuse sources, including rainwater, stormwater, agricultural runoff and wastewater.
While wastewater reuse showed slightly higher values, the study found no statistically decisive difference across sources.
For planners concerned about source-specific stigma, this is significant. Once treatment standards and reliability outcomes are clearly communicated, the origin of the water appears less determinative than the benefit delivered.
A signal for small systems under pressure
Small systems dominate water service provision globally. They also face the sharpest cost pressures and capacity constraints.
This research suggests that in communities facing real or perceived water scarcity, household willingness to fund water reuse may be stronger than sector assumptions imply.
The deeper question for utilities is not whether AU$75 is too much.
It is whether the value of supply resilience is already understood by the communities they serve.