so belly up to the bar

Group hears pros, cons of privatizing water service … by Doug Cook – The Daily Courier – Sunday – 10 Feb 08 – EXERPTED - PRESCOTT - With Prescott, Prescott Valley and Chino Valley considering increasing the role of private enterprise in the production, processing and delivery of water because of the increasingly high costs associated with the business, it is difficult to tell whether the benefits would outweigh the risks. But is it a good idea to sell government-owned water and wastewater assets to private entities? Danforth says it makes sense to compare limited versus complete privatization of water services. In 2003 the Environmental Protection Agency found that U.S. water systems would need to invest $276.8 billion over the next 20 years to continue providing safe, potable water. Private enterprise is more cost efficient than public utilities, Danforth added. He cited a 1999 study of 29 private water companies in the U.S. that reflected savings of anywhere from 10 to 40 percent over public service providers. On the other hand, he said, economic theory provides no assurance that the public will benefit from privatization." Private water companies turn into natural monopolies," he said. "It's too costly to have more than one company in one place." A lack of competition creates another set of problems, including a decline in production, higher prices and a relaxation in water quality standards. "Prices are typically set by state regulatory commissions," Danforth said. "But a regulated monopoly distorts incentives and reduces efficiency." Great Britain, where water is privatized but under the control of the government's Office of Water Regulation, consumers say that water rates have only increased modestly through the years, but many complain of poor service. The trouble in the early part of the 21st century, Danforth said, is that shortages of fresh water exist around the globe, and it's getting worse. He argued whether it might make sense to create a market where consumers buy and sell water rights. Each consumer would have an equal opportunity to acquire the same amount of water in a particular service area for their own purposes, and either buy or sell it depending on need. "You have to have water rights that don't exceed the amount of water," he said. "But can we risk leaving the allocation of a unique and vital resource to market forces? Market-determined prices have proven to be the most effective mechanism for the efficient allocation of goods."

The mammoth giant Bechtel’s actions in privatizing water bespeak quite a story quite differently about the honest benefits mere citizen can expect.

As clearly illuminated in the DVD … The Corporation … Bechtel is hardly the benevolent water purveyor. The reality was an exercise in control and greed. In today’s economic environment, I can not share Mr. Danforth’s assessment … “Market-determined prices have proven to be the most effective mechanism for the efficient allocation of goods “ …

The collective actions of “the market” currently exhibited by private contractors – Halliburton, et. al. - in Iraq tell a compellingly different story.

Mr. Daforth proports that … “Private enterprise is more cost efficient than public utilities “ … though most contemporary examples tell a quite different story.

There may be truth in the position that a publicly owned water system is judged economically less efficient than a private monopoly, but give me the publicly owned system any day in our current economic mantra of greed.

Privatization of your water is right around the corner, folks, so belly up to the bar.