Criticism[edit | edit source]
editIn "Water Privatization Trends in the United States: Human Rights, National Security, and Public Stewardship", Craig Anthony Arnold argues that there is a lack of incentive for private water companies to carry out improvements or maintenance in public water systems that will have lasting benefits beyond their contract term.[3]
There are other criticisms of privatization outside the classic argument of "public" versus "private", the most of fundamental example being the claim that privatization does not lead to cost savings. Mildred Warner, a professor in the Department of City and Regional Planning at Cornell University and expert of government service delivery and privatization, completed a comprehensive analysis of all published water distribution studies published between 1960 and 2009. She and her colleagues found no evidence for cost savings.[2]
Other criticisms come from a potential loss of equality provided by the privatization of water. In the early 19th century, the majority of the water supply in the United States was privatized. However, there were problems with privatization at this time. Water provisions were focused more towards wealthier communities and the poorer areas were sometimes ignored. Additionally, the private companies tended to focus more on profit maximization than on the quality and quantity of service provided because water is a natural monopoly. Because of this, by 2000 only 15% of water supply remained privatized.[1][2]
There have also been multiple examples of privatization contracts being terminated by the government. One such contract was a 20 year contract in Atlanta with United Water in 1998. This contract was terminated after 4 years due to poor quality supplied and mismanagement issues.[3]
Another argument against privatization in the U.S. is for security reasons. Arnold writes, "The critical dependence of the U.S. public on public water supply systems, surface waters, groundwater, and water infrastructure heighten the vulnerability of these systems not only to conflict and scarcity but also to terrorism and intentional harm. Therefore, we require savvy, farreaching, effective government oversight of our water supplies and facilities for their security. Decentralized private control of waters and water systems complicates the government's attempts to fulfill this responsibility."[3]
Furthermore, some argue that the privatization of water gives up governmental control of a good that is essential to life and is ethically wrong. Commodifying water through privatization makes it a good to be bought and sold rather than a good that people have a natural right to, which has led to a lcm of access to this resource in areas.[2][4]
- ^ Cotta, Sabrina A. (2012-11-01). "Privatization and water service provision in the United States: a recommendation for expanded oversight and the development and adoption of best practices". Water International. 37 (7): 818–830. doi:10.1080/02508060.2012.731719. ISSN 0250-8060.
- ^ a b MELOSI, MARTIN V., ed. (2011-01-01). Precious Commodity. Providing Water for America’s Cities. University of Pittsburgh Press. pp. 181–196. ISBN 9780822961413.
- ^ Arnold, Craig Anthony (2009). "Water Privatization Trends In The United States: Human Rights, National Security, And Public Stewardship". William & Mary Environmental Law & Policy Review. 33.3: 785–849 – via EBSCO.
- ^ Gouvello, Bernard de; Scott, Christopher A. (2012-03-01). "Has water privatization peaked? The future of public water governance". Water International. 37 (2): 87–90. doi:10.1080/02508060.2012.663614. ISSN 0250-8060.