Water cremation, formally called alkaline hydrolysis, isn’t illegal everywhere, but it remains banned or unregulated in roughly half of U.S. states. The reasons break down into three categories: state laws that define cremation too narrowly to include it, religious opposition that influences legislators, and unresolved questions about disposing of the liquid byproduct into public wastewater systems.
How Water Cremation Works
The process uses heated water, high pressure, and an alkaline chemical (potassium hydroxide) to dissolve human tissue inside a sealed steel chamber. After several hours, the body’s soft tissue has been completely broken down into a sterile liquid solution. What remains are bone fragments, which are brittle and soft enough to crush by hand. Those crushed fragments are returned to the family in an urn, similar to traditional cremation ashes, though they tend to be lighter in color with a grey or tan appearance once dried.
The liquid portion, roughly 100 gallons per body, contains the dissolved chemical byproducts of the process. This is where much of the legal and ethical debate centers.
State Laws Define Cremation Too Narrowly
One of the most straightforward reasons water cremation is illegal in many states is simply how the law is written. Most state statutes define “cremation” specifically as the use of heat and flame to reduce remains to bone fragments or ashes. Ohio’s code, for example, defines cremation as “the technical process of using heat and flame to reduce human or animal remains to bone fragments or ashes.” Water cremation uses heat but no flame, so it doesn’t qualify under these definitions.
This means that even in states where no one actively opposes the practice, it can’t legally be offered until legislators write new legislation or amend existing cremation statutes. That process is slow. A Texas bill to legalize alkaline hydrolysis stalled for three years without moving forward. As of recent counts, around 20 states, including Florida, California, Utah, and Illinois, have passed laws explicitly permitting it. California legalized the practice in 2017. But in states like Indiana, it remains explicitly illegal, and in many others it simply exists in a legal gray zone with no statute addressing it at all.
Religious Opposition Carries Political Weight
The Catholic Church has been the most vocal institutional opponent. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a formal statement declaring that both water cremation and human composting “fail to satisfy the Church’s requirements for proper respect for the bodies of the dead.” The bishops stated that neither process shows “adequate respect for the human body, nor express hope in the resurrection.”
The Church’s objection is partly theological and partly practical. Catholic teaching holds that burial is “the most fitting way to express faith and hope in the resurrection of the body.” The Church accepted flame cremation with conditions, primarily that the ashes be kept intact and interred in a sacred place rather than scattered. Water cremation creates a problem the bishops specifically called out: after the process, the greater part of the body has been dissolved into roughly 100 gallons of liquid that gets treated as wastewater. In their view, there is nothing distinguishably left of the body to be laid to rest.
In states with large Catholic populations or Catholic legislators, this opposition can be enough to stall or kill a bill. The funeral industry’s own lobbying adds another layer. Some traditional funeral homes and crematory operators view water cremation as competition and have quietly opposed legalization efforts.
Wastewater Concerns Slow Regulation
The liquid effluent is sterile and, by most analyses, no more hazardous than what hospitals and funeral homes already discharge. But the idea of dissolved human remains entering the municipal sewer system creates a visceral reaction that regulators have to navigate carefully.
California’s legalization law illustrates how seriously states take the wastewater question. It requires operators to use the minimum amount of potassium hydroxide necessary “to minimize the downstream environmental impact of the effluent and to maximize worker safety.” Applicants must obtain permits demonstrating compliance with hazardous waste standards, water quality regulations, and drinking water standards before they can operate. The liquid must be cooled and released only in accordance with local environmental rules.
For states considering legalization, this creates a regulatory burden. Local water treatment authorities need to sign off, environmental agencies need to establish monitoring protocols, and someone has to decide which existing regulations apply to a process that didn’t exist when those regulations were written. Some states simply haven’t invested the administrative effort to work through these questions, so the practice stays in limbo by default rather than by deliberate prohibition.
The “Ick Factor” Behind the Politics
Beneath the legal, religious, and environmental arguments sits a simpler reality: the concept makes people uncomfortable. Flame cremation took decades to gain widespread acceptance in the United States, and it still faced resistance from religious groups long after it was legalized everywhere. Water cremation is following a similar trajectory but is still in its early stages.
Legislators in conservative states have little political incentive to champion a bill that opponents can frame as “pouring grandma down the drain,” even if the science supports the process as safe and environmentally sound. Water cremation uses significantly less energy than flame cremation and produces no direct emissions from burning, which appeals to environmentally conscious consumers. But those arguments don’t always overcome the gut-level discomfort that drives opposition in state legislatures.
The trend is clearly toward broader legalization. The number of states permitting alkaline hydrolysis has grown steadily over the past decade, and no state that has legalized it has reversed course. But the patchwork of narrow legal definitions, religious lobbying, wastewater permitting hurdles, and cultural unease means the process will likely remain unavailable in parts of the country for years to come.