Ethical Challenges of Managed Retreat From Centralized Water Systems
Abstract
Apache Junction is a small, dusty desert city on the outskirts of Phoenix, Arizona. Here, residents live with a mix of water systems. In its various urban, suburban, and peri-rural neighborhoods, some households enjoy water from a centralized and (mostly) reliable service, from either the city or (at a higher cost) a for-profit private water company. Others are outside of these service zones, and rely on wells, water kiosks, or hauling their water by truck or bicycle. The work is arduous. We assumed people in Apache Junction would be eager to get access to piped water systems. Yet, as one man told us, ‘You asked the question wrong. You should have asked, do you want water–or do you want the government inspector checking you are meeting building codes? People would happily have no water so no one from the government in your business’. For many in Apache Junction, being disconnected from water service reinforces a prized core identity of (masculinized) self-reliance entwined in the cultural logic of individualism and libertarianism. But alongside this, as the lead contamination crisis in Flint shows (Pauli 2019), albeit differently, is risk aversion based in the lived experience of failed dependency on untrustworthy institutions. Some Apache Junction residents consider piped water unnecessary. This challenges basic assumptions in the social science of water insecurity: that improved access to safe, affordable, and reliable piped water networks is desirable and desired. Fulfilling our commitment to grounded ethnographic research that honors people’s own values and goals for their lives, such as the unexpected views in Apache Junction, required some rethinking on our part.
