Sorry, I posted without pasting the link in the appropriate box so it shows as text post but its actually an article. Anyways I linked it to the online sources in the text.
It's mostly not about privatization. The executive summary doesn't mention it. Looks like it's in recommendation 2 under "Recommendations to Aid Infrastructure Owners and Operators "
Remove barriers to new ways of funding water projects.
Incentivize sustainable investment strategies at the regional and local levels to diversify and have strong interconnectivity with adjacent districts.
Remove barriers to privatization, concessions, and other nontraditional models of funding
community water systems in conjunction with each state's development of best practice approaches to using these nontraditional finance models in the water sector.
Allow access of privately-owned water providers to Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) and U.S. Federal grant programs.
Support and incentivize regionalization of water systems by reviewing state capacity development policies to ensure beneficial regionalization and modifying current grant allocation formulas to actively promote beneficial consolidation of water systems. “Safe harbor” from regulatory penalties should be given to those systems that absorb troubled systems for a reasonable time period.
(Emphasis added.)
Why would they recommend these things? Replacing a community's old water system with a modern one is expensive and somewhat risky infrastructure project. Small communities are likely to put it off. Here's how they put it:
The ASCE’s Failure to Act: Economic Impacts of Status Quo Investment Across Infrastructure Systems 2021 report assessed how the conditions of U.S. infrastructure systems affect the nation’s economic performance. Our nation’s economic health relies on reliable delivery of clean water and electricity and on low transportation costs to offset higher wages and production costs when compared to our international competitors. By 2039, water service disruptions are estimated to cost water-reliant businesses a cumulative $2.9 trillion decline in U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) due to underinvestment, and failing drinking water infrastructure results in a cumulative $7.7 billion in associated health care costs. This analysis has not been adjusted for the impact of IIJA investments
Two examples of dramatic water system failures are Flint, Michigan and Jackson, Mississippi. It tends to be poor communities that suffer. There will probably be more.
So, it might be a good idea to look into non-traditional ways of funding water systems, instead of each small community doing it on their own, which they can't afford? They recommend "regionalization" meaning that communities should work together more. Maybe state governments should do more?
The regionalization of water will require Federal action. We need to elevate water as a national priority.
They recommend creating a Department of Water at the Federal level. Looks like lots more government involvement.
Why might private companies play a role? One thing to keep in mind is that for government projects, by default the government takes the risk and any cost overruns get paid for by taxpayers. Outsourcing to contractors might sometimes mean outsourcing substantial risk, depending on contract terms. (This is a reason to be suspicious of cost-plus contracts. Taking risks is what shareholders are for.)
Sorry, I posted without pasting the link in the appropriate box so it shows as text post but its actually an article. Anyways I linked it to the online sources in the text.
Looks like the report is here.
It's mostly not about privatization. The executive summary doesn't mention it. Looks like it's in recommendation 2 under "Recommendations to Aid Infrastructure Owners and Operators "
(Emphasis added.)
Why would they recommend these things? Replacing a community's old water system with a modern one is expensive and somewhat risky infrastructure project. Small communities are likely to put it off. Here's how they put it:
Two examples of dramatic water system failures are Flint, Michigan and Jackson, Mississippi. It tends to be poor communities that suffer. There will probably be more.
So, it might be a good idea to look into non-traditional ways of funding water systems, instead of each small community doing it on their own, which they can't afford? They recommend "regionalization" meaning that communities should work together more. Maybe state governments should do more?
They recommend creating a Department of Water at the Federal level. Looks like lots more government involvement.
Why might private companies play a role? One thing to keep in mind is that for government projects, by default the government takes the risk and any cost overruns get paid for by taxpayers. Outsourcing to contractors might sometimes mean outsourcing substantial risk, depending on contract terms. (This is a reason to be suspicious of cost-plus contracts. Taking risks is what shareholders are for.)
If you want to know how wrong this can go, look at the UK. Rivers and beaches full of chemicals and sewage.