Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
No. That is the one aspect that should be maintained by the city.
What exactly is the stuff in bottles if not "privatized" water?
Australia is moving this way, and England already did. With the net result of cleaner drinking water and cleaner river water. I'd say those are pretty good benefits, and predictable impacts of a free and competitive market rather than a regulated monopoly.
Why is it necessary to do so?
I'm sort of curious… so police, fire, court systems, or schools can all be outsourced in your view instead of water services?
Where I live, we have a private water company that provides better service and cleaner and better tasting water at a much more affordable cost than any big city water service that I have ever lived in.
Private water companies work for a profit, and in order to ensure that they get that profit they have to keep their customers happy – and that is nothing but a win-win situation!
For environmental reasons I'm going to say yes. We subsidize water use heavily here (in the US) and it leads to wasteful water use. By privatizing water distribution the price of water will rise to reflect true market value and water use will decline, we'll also be more likely to avoid water shortages in periods of drought as water cost would then be able to increase in periods of restricted supply, instead of just forcing everyone into a communal supply system.