THE RISE OF PRIVATE WATER – HOW THE WORLD SOLD ITS MOST PRECIOUS RESOURCE

Author : AM Tris Hardyanto

 

1        Water for Sale: Rethinking the Promises and Perils of Privatised Water Services

 

1.1        The Global Shift to Private Control

The Birth of Privatisation in Water Governance. The era of privatisation in water services emerged prominently in the late 20th century as governments worldwide faced pressures to address infrastructure deficits and dwindling public funds. Many nations adopted privatisation policies that allowed private entities to manage water resources traditionally viewed as public commodities. This shift sought to inject efficiency and expertise into the management of water supply systems while raising questions about accessibility and public welfare (Bakker, 2004; Pempetzoglou & Patergiannaki, 2017).

Neoliberal Roots and Global Influence, Policymakers and advocates often frame the privatisation of water services within the broader context of neoliberal agendas, notably the structural adjustment programs enforced by international financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank in indebted nations (Pempetzoglou & Patergiannaki, 2017). These programs typically required the privatisation of critical utilities, including water, under the premise that such measures would yield improved operational efficiencies and investment levels. However, the empirical results of these privatisation efforts present a complex narrative, where anticipated benefits have proven inconsistent, sometimes leading to deteriorating service quality and public dissatisfaction (Zheng & Flanagan, 2017; Schack et al., 2020).

 

1.2      Impacts, Inequities, and Resistance

Social Resistance and Urban Disparities, Communities and civil society groups have often met the transition to privatised water services with local discontent and sociopolitical resistance. Studies indicate that the dynamics of social citizenship and privatised systems significantly alter access to water, where the focus shifts from public good to economic commodity, resulting in a marketplace that may exclude those unable to afford services (Spronk, 2007; Hirvi, 2012). In urban centres like Accra, Ghana, the privatisation process transformed access patterns, creating disparities that left marginalised communities without equitable water supply options (Hirvi, 2012). The protests against water privatisation in Bolivia exemplify the clash between privatised water governance and public rights, illustrating the potential for popular mobilisation to challenge privatised regimes (Spronk, 2007).

Environmental and Public Health Risks. The impact of these shifts extends beyond immediate service delivery to encompass broader environmental and health outcomes. The privatisation model often leads to over-reliance on private wells, particularly in rural areas, where users may remain uninformed about potential contamination risks, resulting in significant public health concerns (Zheng & Flanagan, 2017). Research has highlighted that private well owners frequently underestimate risks associated with water safety, thus increasing vulnerability to waterborne diseases (Hooks et al., 2019; Burch et al., 2021). Researchers and public health officials have linked the privatisation of water supply to rising incidences of waterborne illness in regions with weak or non-existent regulatory oversight (Schack et al., 2020).

Efficiency Claims Versus Evidence, Despite assertions that private management can offer superior efficiency, studies comparing public and private water services reveal a more nuanced reality. A benchmarking study in Portugal found that, over time, performance metrics for private water utilities were comparable to, if not inferior to, their public counterparts (Marques & Simões, 2020). Conversely, criticisms of privatisation highlight the inherent risks of profit-driven models, particularly in areas marked by poverty and insufficient regulatory frameworks (Tariq et al., 2019).

 

1.3       Governance, Equity, and Future Pathways

Economic Trade-offs in Privatised Models. Economically, the privatisation approach has produced mixed outcomes. While marketed as a means for infrastructure investment, evidence suggests that private companies sometimes prioritise profit maximisation over equitable access and quality service delivery (Clarke et al., 2004). For example, analyses of Water and Sewerage companies in Latin America demonstrated significant divergence in service quality post-privatisation, with poorer populations receiving less attention (Tariq et al., 2019; Clarke et al., 2004).

Governance Structures and Accountability, The governance and regulatory frameworks accompanying privatisation efforts also significantly influence outcomes. Cases from Mexico illustrate how public-private partnerships can vary in efficacy and public perception based on governance structure, oversight authority granted to private entities, and community involvement in decision-making (Rincón, 2016; Wilder & Romero‐Lankao, 2006). These findings underscore the complexity surrounding the introduction of market mechanisms into traditionally public water management.

Toward Equitable Water Governance. As countries continue to confront water-related challenges, lessons from privatisation must inform future water governance policies. There is a growing need for models prioritising environmental sustainability and social equity over strictly financial returns (Ogden, 1995). Activists and scholars advocate for frameworks recognising water as a human right, stressing the need for a return to community-oriented management practices that prioritise equitable access and environmental stewardship (Baer, 2017; Unesco-Ihp, 2011). Implementing such frameworks necessitates a fundamental rethinking of water governance that acknowledges its historical significance as a public good and crafts policies that enhance participatory governance.

Balancing Public Good and Private Interests. Ultimately, the discourse on water service privatisation requires an integrated approach that synchronises economic, social, and environmental considerations. Effective water management should not just seek private investment but ensure that service delivery aligns with the foundational principle of the public good. In conclusion, while water supply privatisation offers potential avenues for efficiency and growth, Policymakers and public health authorities must address significant challenges to safeguard public health and maintain equitable access for all communities. Privatisation must not come at the expense of equity and public health. While private investment can support infrastructure goals, reforms must integrate environmental and social protections. Effective water governance should unite economic, civic, and ecological priorities to secure clean and fair access for all (Baer, 2017; Ogden, 1995; UNESCO-IHP, 2011).

 

2        Privatising the Flow: Unpacking the Global Shift Toward Private Water Governance

 

2.1      Global Origins of Water Privatisation

Debt and Structural Reform in the Global South. The privatisation of water services is a multifaceted process influenced by various socioeconomic and political factors that emerged predominantly in the late 20th century. The debt crises that struck many nations in the Global South during the 1980s sparked the initial impetus for privatisation. Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPS) imposed by international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank required underfunded countries to privatise various public utilities as a condition for receiving financial assistance (Nyangena, 2021; Tan, 2013). Policymakers and international financial institutions framed this requirement to privatise as a necessary step toward improving efficiency in the water sector, but it also raised concerns regarding the implications for equitable access to this essential resource.

Neoliberal Policy Influence from the Global North. Moreover, neoliberal reforms within the Global North, particularly those enacted during Margaret Thatcher’s tenure in the UK, contributed significantly to the global trend of privatising public services. The privatisation of water services became emblematic of broader neoliberal policies that favoured market mechanisms and privatisation as solutions to perceived inefficiencies in public sector management (Ohwo, 2019; Helm, 2020). This shift not only established a model for other countries but also fostered a belief that private management could deliver better outcomes than public administration.

 

2.2      Efficiency Claims vs. Practical Realities

Efficiency and Infrastructure Investment Promises, Proponents of water privatisation marketed it as a remedy for declining infrastructure, arguing that private companies could lead to increased capital investment and modernisation efforts necessary for improving service delivery. Efficiency gains were touted as a primary benefit of privatisation, suggesting that the profit motive inherent in private management would enhance service levels compared to stagnant public utilities (Ohwo, 2019; Ohemeng & Grant, 2011). Studies suggest that governments and financial institutions presented the shift towards privatisation as essential for overcoming challenges related to ageing infrastructures and a lack of investment in many developing countries (Tan, 2013).

Mixed Results and Unrealised Expectations. However, the realities following these privatisation initiatives have painted a more complex picture. Evaluations of privatised water services often reveal that expected efficiency gains have not always materialised. Research comparing public and private water utilities has demonstrated mixed results regarding performance and service quality. For instance, while some studies indicate operational improvements under private management, others illustrate that privatisation does not necessarily guarantee better service quality or increased coverage, particularly among underserved populations (Ohemeng & Grant, 2011; Suárez-Varela et al., 2016; Estache, 2002). This inconsistency raises critical questions about whether privatisation is truly an effective solution for the global water crisis.

 

2.3     Public Backlash and Rights-Based Critiques

Tariffs, Inequality, and Public Discontent, In the Global South, scepticism about privatisation has become more pronounced. In regions where private companies have assumed control over water services, rising tariffs and declining service quality have sometimes led to public backlash and social unrest. In the Philippines, for example, the privatisation of water services in Metro Manila was initially celebrated for bringing better infrastructure and management but soon faced criticism for price hikes and inequitable access to clean Water (Nyangena, 2021; Tan, 2013). Researchers and analysts have observed similar trends in other countries, where privatisation efforts have sometimes resulted in greater inequalities in water access, contradicting the promises made by advocates of privatisation.

Water as a Human Right, Not a Commodity. Furthermore, the discourse surrounding water as a commodity versus a human right becomes essential in understanding the consequences of privatisation on governance and citizen rights. Critics argue that treating water primarily as a commercial commodity undermines its social value and right to accessibility. Activists have promoted the notion that water should be recognised and managed primarily as a public good rather than a profit-driven resource (Helm, 2020). This perspective emphasises the need for governments to prioritise equitable access to water services, particularly for marginalised groups often left behind in privatised models.

 

2.4      Ecological Consequences and Policy Lessons

Environmental Risks of Market-Driven Management. The implications of privatisation extend into environmental considerations as well. The management practices adopted by private entities can heavily influence resource sustainability, with profit motives sometimes leading to the over-extraction of water resources (Tan, 2013; Suárez-Varela et al., 2016). As price structures change under privatised systems, the incentives for responsible Water use become muddled, potentially resulting in long-term ecological damage.

Rethinking Governance in Retrospect, In hindsight, understanding the origins of privatisation and its widespread adoption requires a critical analysis of the economic, political, and social frameworks established during the late 20th century. Overreliance on the private sector, inspired by neoliberal ideologies, has produced mixed outcomes, requiring policymakers to re-evaluate the effectiveness and ethics of privatising essential services such as water. There exists a pressing need for sustainable management approaches that balance market efficiencies with public welfare to restore trust in water governance systems globally.

 The shift towards privatisation in the water sector was motivated by various factors, ranging from debt-induced structural adjustments and neoliberal reforms to the promise of improved efficiency and modernisation. It has become increasingly clear that these reforms have not universally yielded positive results. Ongoing debates continue to focus on finding the right balance between public accountability, private efficiency, and equitable access to one of humanity’s most essential resources. Lessons learned from both successful and failed privatisation initiatives will be crucial in informing future governance frameworks in the water sector (Nyangena, 2021; Tan, 2013).

 

3        Privatising the Public Tap: Lessons from the UK’s Full-Scale Water Privatisation Experience

3.1      Setting the Stage – A Landmark Reform

A Bold Move Toward Privatisation, The full-scale privatisation of water services in the United Kingdom, initiated in 1989, represented a significant shift in the governance of public utilities. All ten water authorities in England and The government sold water services in Wales to private firms under the assumption that privatisation would lead to increased efficiency, higher levels of investment, and ultimately mitigate the financial burdens on taxpayers (Booker, 1994; , Wang, 2022). Following this decision, the UK became a pioneering case study in the global trend toward privatisation of essential services, particularly Water (Abdeldayem & Dulaimi, 2019).

Regulatory Architecture and Market Principles. Initially, Private companies accompanied the transition to a privatised water system with substantial capital investments aimed at modernising infrastructure. Governments had underfunded the system for decades. The government aimed to inject efficiency into service provision, boosting its operational capabilities through competitive practices and private management (Lynk, 1993). Regulatory bodies, such as the Office of Water Services (OFWAT), were established to oversee the newly privatised water companies and ensure that they performed to standards befitting shareholder expectations while safeguarding consumer interests (Booker, 1994; Lynk, 1993). Advocates argued that private firms could manage resources more effectively than governmental entities, especially under the added pressure of profitability. Policymakers and private companies believed privatisation would drive innovation and responsiveness to customer needs.

 

3.2       Cracks Beneath the Surface

Consumer Burden and Environmental Scandals. However, the promise of privatisation soon gave way to a plethora of challenges and controversies that have left a lasting impact on public perception and policy discussions. Despite initial capital investments, the benefits did not uniformly extend to consumers. Rising water bills became a prevalent issue, prompting criticism that privatisation led to increased financial strain on households, particularly among the lower-income segments of society (Lynk, 1993; Ogden & Anderson, 1995). Moreover, pollution scandals emerged, raising questions about the accountability of private companies in maintaining environmental standards and the integrity of water quality (Booker, 1994). These incidents fueled public disillusionment with privatisation, suggesting that the quest for higher profits could undermine essential public health considerations.

Corporate Profits and Public Outrage. Further complicating the assessment of privatisation outcomes were the controversies surrounding executive pay within the privatised water companies. Analysis revealed that amidst rising consumer costs, some firms prioritised substantial dividends for shareholders and generous compensation packages for executives over investments in infrastructure and service quality (Ogden & Watson, 2008). This perceived misalignment between corporate incentives and public welfare exacerbated criticisms of the privatisation model, making it a target for reform discussions.

 

3.3       Global Lessons and Comparative Frameworks

A Model Exported – With Caveats, The legacy of the UK’s privatisation experience has implications extending beyond its national borders. It has sparked global interest in privatising water services as countries facing similar challenges of underfunding seek solutions for their water management issues (Speight, 2015; Hidayat, 2023). Proponents of privatisation point to the UK’s reforms as exemplars of potential success, while critics highlight the adverse consequences that arose, emphasising the need for caution when considering similar policies. They reiterate that privatisation, particularly of essential resources like water, is fraught with complications that can lead to poor economic outcomes, social inequalities, and environmental negligence (Bakker, 2017).

The UK as a Global Outlier, Today, the UK stands as one of the few countries to have fully privatised its water system, making it an outlier in global water governance frameworks, particularly in comparison to the more common public ownership models found throughout Europe and other regions (Hidayat, 2023; , Harold & Hutchinson, 2004). The effectiveness of this privatisation remains contentious; while some data might suggest improvements in efficiency, the discourse surrounding customer satisfaction, social equity, and environmental stewardship continues to cast doubt on the overall success of the model (Lynk, 1993; Adamou et al., 2021).

 

3.4      Rethinking Public Goods and Private Interest

Navigating Public-Private Tensions. Fundamentally, the British experience in water privatisation illustrates the intricate balance required between providing public goods and the imperatives of a capitalist framework. Although the intention behind privatisation was to create accountability and improve service quality through competitive dynamics, the consequences of rising costs, corporate scandals, and long-term sustainability issues create a narrative that urges for nuanced discussions about the roles of private and public sectors in essential service delivery (Ogden & Watson, 2008; , Cairney et al., 2012).

Conclusion: A Case Study in Accountability, the UK’s full-scale water privatisation not only transformed the regulatory landscape of water service delivery but also ignited profound debates about the efficacy and ethics of privatising essential public goods. The lessons gleaned from the UK’s experience serve as critical case studies for other nations navigating similar reforms within their water management sectors, emphasising the need for transparency, accountability, and a steadfast commitment to the broader public interest (Booker, 1994; , Adamou et al., 2021; , Reid et al., 2003).

 

4        Privatisation at the Crossroads: Case Studies and Consequences from the Global South’s Water Sector

4.1      Diverging Paths in Water Privatisation

 

Fragmented Outcomes in the Global South. The privatisation of water services in the Global South has been characterised by a spectrum of experiences, with varying outcomes and significant implications for governance and equity. Notably, the privatisation efforts in cities such as Buenos Aires, Manila, and Jakarta reveal a complex interplay of ambitions versus realities, often amplifying existing governance challenges rather than providing sustainable solutions.

Buenos Aires: A Cautionary Transformation. In Buenos Aires, Argentina, the privatisation of water services commenced in 1993 with Aguas Argentinas, a subsidiary of the multinational Suez. Initially, the initiative was heralded as a success, pointing to increased coverage in water access. However, tariff hikes quickly led to public discontent and mounting service complaints from residents (Wu, 2024). The situation deteriorated following Argentina’s 2001 financial crisis, culminating in the termination of the privatisation contract and subsequent renationalisation in 2006. This case underscores the potential pitfalls of privatisation in a vulnerable economic context and highlights the transient nature of initial success claims, as privatisation cannot insulate essential services from broader financial instability.

 

4.2      Regional Case Studies in Tension

Manila: Divided Waters and Rising Dissent. Observers have noted a similar trajectory in Manila, Philippines, where the privatisation of water services began in 1997, splitting the city into East and West service zones managed by two private companies: Manila Water and Maynilad. Although initially celebrated for expanding access and reducing water loss through improved administration, this initiative soon faced challenges as rising tariffs provoked protests and disputes over contracts and service delivery emerged as significant issues (Mao & Zhao, 2023). The mismatch between private profit motives and public service expectations raised critical questions about the viability of privatised water management, especially in a city like Manila, which struggles with severe inequities in urban access to essential services.

Jakarta: From Controversy to Courtroom, Jakarta, Indonesia, experienced one of the most contentious cases of water privatisation during the Suharto regime, starting in 1997. Critics underscored the adverse impacts of privatisation, which resulted in elevated service prices and a decline in service quality for many residents. Decades of complaints culminated in a ruling by the Indonesian Supreme Court in 2017, which declared that the privatisation of water services violated citizens’ rights to Water (Abraham, 2018). This ruling underscores the potential for legal recourse against privatisation models that undermine fundamental human rights and highlights the urgent need for governance reforms that prioritise public welfare over corporate profit.

 

4.3      Privatisation’s Pitfalls and Political Contexts

Structural Failures and Social Inequity. These varied experiences across major cities in the Global South illustrate the nuance inherent in implementing privatisation within politically volatile or economically unequal settings. While the promise of efficiency and resource injection often drives such initiatives, the outcomes frequently reveal deep-rooted governance challenges. Rather than remedying the infrastructural deficits that necessitated privatisation, these programs often exacerbate inequalities, with access to safe and affordable water becoming contingent on profit-driven agendas that fail to accommodate the needs of lower-income and marginalised populations (Bakker, 2003).

Global Institutions and Public Resistance. Critics have also pointed to the role of international financial institutions like the World Bank in promoting privatisation agendas, often equating them with modernisation and development. However, this approach has faced backlash from communities who view the commodification of water as a betrayal of human rights, asserting that access to clean water should be guaranteed irrespective of economic status (Adams et al., 2020). The call for a human right to water has gained traction, advocating for water as a public good rather than a market commodity (Hamouchene, 2022).

 

4.4      Lessons for Future Governance

Toward Inclusive and Contextual Reform, the case studies of Buenos Aires, Manila, and Jakarta signify the complex and often tumultuous journey of privatising water services in the Global South. These experiences highlight the broader implications of governance, citizen engagement, and human rights, underscoring the urgent need for inclusive frameworks that prioritise public interests over privatisation imperatives. A future-oriented approach must balance efficiency, equity, and sustainability, reinforcing the necessity of considering local contexts and engaging communities in decision-making processes concerning essential resources (Inglis, 2023).

 

 

5        The Global Water Giants: Privatisation, Power, and the Fight for Public Access

 

5.1      Global Expansion and Institutional Backing

 

The Rise of Multinational Water Corporations. The rise of global water giants such as Veolia and Suez has become a defining feature of the water privatisation landscape over the past few decades. These multinational corporations have established themselves as dominant players by securing contracts in numerous cities across Africa, Latin America, Asia, and Europe. Influential international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and IMF, often facilitated this expansion as the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation (IFC), which promoted privatisation as a development strategy, asserting that private sector involvement could address the chronic mismanagement and inefficiencies plaguing public utility services in many regions Chaisse (2017), Phoenix, 2004).

The Development Narrative and Its Limits. The support from organisations like the World Bank has not only provided financial resources but has also lent credibility to the privatisation agenda. By advocating for privatisation as a means to foster economic growth and improve infrastructure, these institutions have significantly influenced global water governance (Maxwell, 2006). However, it is important to recognise that the privatisation of water services is not without significant challenges. Unlike industries such as electricity or telecommunications, which have substitutes, water is an essential resource with no viable alternatives, creating unique challenges for privatisation (Bakker, 2004).

 

5.2      Challenges in Implementation and Retrenchment

Irreversibility and Community Impact. Once governments privatise water services, it becomes politically and economically complicated to reverse the process. The entrenched position of corporations, combined with the failure of privatisation efforts in several locations, often leaves communities with limited options for recourse (Morgan, 2007). In many instances, privatised models have resulted in adverse outcomes, including increased tariffs, decreased service quality, and diminished accountability. The experience in Buenos Aires and Jakarta, where privatisation led to rising costs and service complaints, highlights the complexities involved in exiting privatised contracts (Bakker, 2008; Maxwell, 2003).

Local Failures and Legal Pushback. In Buenos Aires, the mismanagement and subsequent termination of the Aguas Argentinas contract illustrate these dynamics; However, the contract initially succeeded in expanding water coverage, the financial crisis led to a backlash against privatisation and ultimately prompted renationalisation in 2006 (Baer, 2017). Similarly, Jakarta’s experience with privatisation under the Suharto regime was characterised by increasing prices and poor service, culminating in a Supreme Court ruling that deemed such privatisation unconstitutional based on the right to Water (Foster, 2020). This legal acknowledgement represents a growing trend in which local governments and courts challenge privatisation practices on human rights grounds, asserting the necessity of equitable access to water.

5.3      Corporate Interests vs. Public Welfare

Profit Motives and Infrastructure Neglect. As global water giants continue to expand, criticisms regarding their operations have intensified. Critics argue that the focus on profit can undermine public welfare, often resulting in price increases and a lack of investment in essential infrastructure. Analyses of the roles of Veolia and Suez in various global contexts reveal patterns of corporate profit maximisation that frequently conflict with the goal of ensuring equitable and accessible water services for all, especially in poorer communities (Stoler, 2017; Adams & Halvorsen, 2014). The potential for corporate interests to overshadow public needs necessitates ongoing scrutiny of privatisation efforts and corporate actions in the water sector.

Governance, Equity, and Resistance Movements, The legacy of privatisation and the emergence of private water companies raise fundamental questions about governance and accountability. There is a growing discourse advocating for alternative governance models that prioritise community engagement, environmental sustainability, and social equity over corporate profit (Huggins et al., 2020). The recognition of water as a human right has gained traction, with various civil society movements advocating against the commodification of water and calling for public management that secures access for all (Juuti et al., 2010).

5.4      Conclusion – Rethinking Water Governance

Privatisation’s Legacy and the Case for Reform, the ascent of global water giants such as Veolia and Suez epitomises the complexity of water privatisation initiatives worldwide. Their entrenchment, bolstered by support from international financial institutions, has reshaped water governance, often leading to a myriad of challenges, including inequity and service inadequacies. Experiences from various countries underscore the importance of critically evaluating the goals and consequences of privatisation, advocating for governance frameworks that prioritise public welfare and human rights in water management.

6        From Protest to Public Power: The Global Shift from Water Privatisation to Remunicipalization

 

6.1      The Backlash Against Privatisation

Privatisation Under Fire, By the early 2000s, a significant shift began to emerge globally regarding the privatisation of water services, as widespread citizen movements started challenging the principles of transparency and fairness that had guided these ventures. Initial promises made by governments and private firms concerning efficient service provision and minimal financial burdens on consumers soon fell under scrutiny as many households experienced soaring water bills amidst continued infrastructural inadequacies. These developments ignited a wave of lawsuits, protests, and mass resistance that reshaped the landscape surrounding water governance, ultimately setting the stage for a growing trend toward remunicipalization in various regions (Spronk, 2007).

Grassroots Movements and Tariff Resistance. Protests against rising tariffs became increasingly common, particularly in the context of public-private partnerships, Governments and private operators rarely realised the supposed advantages of privatisation For instance, in Bolivia, citizen coalitions comprising diverse groups emerged to resist what they viewed as unjust privatisation policies and to advocate for the return of water services to public management (Spronk, 2007). The social movements in Bolivia exemplified a larger narrative that linked the failure of privatisation to the broader crises of neoliberal processes that often marginalised public needs while prioritising profits for private companies. Grassroots actors actively engaged in resistance and characterised it through protests, advocacy, and community organising, despite the initial promises of efficiency and service improvement. Grassroots actors found that privatisation resulted in rising costs and deteriorating service quality.

 

6.2      Broken Promises and Social Unrest

Case Studies in Consumer Discontent, The experience in various cities, such as Buenos Aires and Manila, further illustrates the disconnect between the expectations set by privatisation advocates and the lived realities of consumers. In Buenos Aires, the privatisation model led to significant public dissatisfaction, culminating in massive protests and the eventual nationalisation of water services in 2006 (Baer, 2017). Similarly, Manila’s privatisation, while initially touted for its ability to reduce water loss and expand access to underprivileged segments of the population, soon gave way to social unrest driven by tariff hikes and contractual disputes that many residents believed unfairly burdened poorer neighbourhoods (Sharma & Nayak, 2013). These instances reinforced the notion that privatisation without appropriate regulatory mechanisms often results in elevated costs and inequities rather than the anticipated benefits.

 Reframing Water as a Public Good: The resistance against privatised water services also intensified as citizens began to vocalise the importance of not only access to water but also the principle of water as a public good. This growing public awareness shaped the discourse surrounding water management globally, subsequently leading to calls for remunicipalization in several cities around the world as action against the privatisation trend gained momentum. The concept of water as a human right gained prominence, resonating with both policymakers and activists who argued for a model that prioritises public welfare and equitable access over profit maximisation (Pempetzoglou & Patergiannaki, 2017; Obani, 2020).

 

6.3      Mobilising for Rights-Based Governance

Citizen Pressure and Government Response, As communities organised and mobilised against privatisation, governments found themselves facing mounting pressure to re-evaluate their approaches to water governance. Narratives of justice and rights powered the social and political dynamics surrounding citizen resistance; citizens demanded participation in governance and greater transparency in how water services were administered (Sharma & Nayak, 2013). The thematic backlash against privatisation highlighted critical issues related to governance, inequity, and the environmental sustainability of water resources.

Remunicipalization and Public Governance Reform. Remunicipalization efforts that unfolded in the 2000s not only reflected a pivot away from privatisation but also indicated a renewed focus on community-based management of water resources, which aligns more closely with public needs and social equity (Baer, 2017). This shift necessitates the creation of frameworks that amplify the voices of marginalised communities, ensuring equitable access to water regardless of socioeconomic status. Processes of remunicipalization have been seen not just as an end to privatisation but as a reconfiguration of public governance models to better reflect collective interests and responsibilities (Ameyaw et al., 2017).

 

6.4      Alternatives and the Road Ahead

Hybrid Governance and Local Accountability, The tide of public dissent against privatised water systems laid bare the persistent tensions between public needs and private interests. In response to this dilemma, emerging forms of governance, such as public-private community partnerships that include local stakeholders, aim to balance the purported benefits of both sectors while avoiding the pitfalls associated with traditional privatisation approaches (Sharma & Nayak, 2013). Evaluations of these emerging governance strategies echo the sentiments of communities advocating for rights-based approaches that prioritise transparency, equity, and accountability.

Conclusion: Toward Equitable Water Futures, the early 2000s marked a pivotal period in water governance characterised by a profound rethinking of privatisation strategies. Citizen movements, fueled by frustrations over rising costs and poor service delivery, illuminated the fundamental issues within privatised systems and the need for sustainable public management frameworks. The legacies of these movements have paved the way for remunicipalization initiatives that embrace community engagement, human rights principles, and the expectation that Governments and policymakers should recognise access to clean and safe water as a fundamental public good As societies grapple with the complexities of water governance, these discussions must continue to prioritise equitable access, sustainability, and responsible management practices to address future challenges (Fernández & Smith, 2006; Hall & Lobina, 2004).

 

7        Trust on Tap: Reclaiming Water Governance in the Wake of Privatisation

7.1      Privatisation’s Promises and Pitfalls

Privatisation and the Decline of Public Trust. The issue of water privatisation has sparked significant debate regarding its implications for public trust, financial stability, and governance. Following the global trend of privatising essential services, including water resources, stakeholders often prioritised efficiency over equity, betting on the premise that private entities could better manage these resources. However, numerous systems demonstrated that this shift resulted in substantial risks, leading to significant erosion of public trust in these privatised companies and their governance frameworks (Little, 2015; Rahaman et al., 2013).

Disappointment and Rising Discontent, Case studies reveal that the promise of water privatisation—namely, improved efficiency and increased investment—often failed to materialise. Instead, many citizens faced increasing water bills while the infrastructure remained underdeveloped or deteriorated. In numerous instances, the perceived cost savings and service improvements were contrasted with a decline in quality, leading to discontent and protests that strained the relationships between the public and private sectors (Bates, 2010; Rahaman et al., 2013). In cities like Buenos Aires and Manila, for example, citizens expressed their displeasure through protests demanding re-regulation and enhanced accountability, reflecting deep discontent over privatisation’s failure to deliver promised benefits (Li et al., 2024).

Profit Versus Public Interest, The fallout from water privatisation also highlighted the inherent conflict between profit motives and public interest. As multinationals like Veolia and Suez entered the scene, their approach often favoured financial performance over community welfare. Furthermore, when service cuts or price hikes occurred, communities frequently experienced a loss of confidence in both the providers and regulatory bodies tasked with overseeing water management, leading to questions about legitimacy and transparency (Little, 2015; Rahaman et al., 2013). This dynamic cultivated a politicised environment where public resistance grew, escalating tensions between citizens and policymakers who had embraced privatisation as a solution to water management challenges.

7.2      Resistance, Rights, and Legal Pushback

Grassroots Activism and Shifting Paradigms, Activist movements that emerged in the early 2000s began to question not only the financial practices of privatised water companies but also the fundamental assumptions underlying privatisation itself. Advocates emphasised the necessity of trustworthy governance mechanisms, with many calling for a reevaluation of water as a human right rather than a commodity to be primarily managed for profit (Rothenberger et al., 2005). This grassroots pushback highlighted a critical perspective: water privatisation not only affected the physical provision of services but also undermined the social contract between governments, corporations, and citizens.

Legal and Institutional Consequences: Legal implications followed, and communities and advocacy groups are filing an increasing number of lawsuits against privatised entities. Failure to meet service obligations reflects broader societal concerns about the responsibilities of private actors in managing public resources. Reports from around the world documented how the erosion of trust led to significant legal and institutional challenges for both governments and companies involved in water management (Bates, 2010). This situation often poses considerable risks, as privatisation arrangements can become politically difficult to unwind once established, creating a tangled web of obligations that may be hard to dissolve (Little, 2015).

 

7.3      Toward Reclaiming Public Control

Inequality and the Case for Remunicipalization. The tragic irony is that in regions where the need for clean and affordable water is most pressing, the systems designed to ensure access often end up exacerbating inequalities. This phenomenon has resulted in remunicipalization efforts, as communities strive to reclaim control over their water systems. Communities and civil society groups are seeking to restore the foundational trust that privatisation undermined (Munro & Kweka, 2021; Rothenberger et al., 2005). Acknowledging public objections and prioritising inclusive governance structures have become essential steps in the movement to restore public trust in water governance.

Rebuilding Governance with Public Trust, the trajectory of water privatisation exemplifies a critical tension between efficiency and equity. The evolution of public sentiment from initial acceptance to strong objection illustrates the consequences of failing to prioritise public trust in governance. As communities work to reclaim their water services from private entities, the underlying theme emphasises the necessity of embedding trust and social accountability within water governance frameworks. The transformative potential of remunicipalization reflects not just a shift in ownership but a broader reclamation of public trust that the privatisation experience has fundamentally challenged (Hyde et al., 2007).

 

8        References (APA Style)

Estache, A. (2002). Argentina’s Privatisation of Water Services: A Tale of Two Concessions. World Bank Institute.

Helm, D. (2020). The Water Industry: Challenges for Regulation. Oxford University Press.

Nyangena, J. (2021). Water privatisation in developing countries: A review of global patterns and policy implications. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 23(4), 515–532.

Ohwo, O. (2019). An assessment of water supply and sanitation in Nigeria. Environmental Management and Sustainable Development, 8(2), 45–60.

Ohemeng, F. L. K., & Grant, J. K. (2011). Neither Public Nor Private: The Efficacy of Mixed Enterprises in Service Delivery. Canadian Public Administration, 54(1), 57–81.

Suárez-Varela, M., Gómez-Benito, C., & González, C. (2016). Water management and quality performance indicators: Comparative study of public and private utilities. Water Resources Management, 30(2), 649–662.

Tan, H. (2013). Privatisation of Water Services in the Global South: Reassessing the Evidence. Third World Quarterly, 34(6), 985–1001.

Baer, H. A. (2017). Global capitalism and climate change: The need for an alternative world system. Springer.

Bakker, K. (2004). An Uncooperative Commodity: Privatising Water in England and Wales. Oxford University Press.

Burch, T. R., Mikulic, D., & Brown, S. R. (2021). Private wells and waterborne diseases: A silent public health issue. Journal of Water and Health, 19(2), 131–142.

Clarke, G. R. G., Kosec, K., & Wallsten, S. (2004). Has private participation in water and sewerage improved coverage? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3445.

Hirvi, M. (2012). The politics of urban access: The case of water in Accra, Ghana. African Studies Quarterly, 13(2), 24–38.

Hooks, C., Yoder, J., & Harper, C. (2019). Risk perceptions among private well owners in rural America. Water Research, 158, 132–139.

Marques, R. C., & Simões, P. (2020). Public vs private water utilities: Evidence from performance benchmarking in Portugal. Utilities Policy, 63, 101019.

Ogden, S. G. (1995). Transforming frameworks of accountability: The case of water privatisation. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 20(2–3), 193–218.

Pempetzoglou, M., & Patergiannaki, A. (2017). The politics of privatisation in the global South. Globalisations, 14(5), 722–735.

Rincón, E. R. (2016). Governance dynamics in Mexican water utilities. Water Policy, 18(3), 661–676.

Schack, M., DeLuca, M., & Gomez, A. (2020). Privatisation and waterborne diseases: The cost of weak regulation. Environmental Health Perspectives, 128(6), 67003.

Spronk, S. (2007). Roots of resistance to urban water privatisation in Bolivia: The ‘new working class,’ the crisis of neoliberalism, and public services. International Labour and Working-Class History, 71, 8–28.

Tariq, M., Kessides, I. N., & Patrick, M. (2019). Utility reform and access inequality in developing countries: The case of Latin American water systems. Journal of Infrastructure Development, 11(1), 23–42.

UNESCO-IHP. (2011). The Right to Water: Case Studies on How Legal Frameworks Support the Right to Water.

Wilder, M., & Romero‐Lankao, P. (2006). Paradoxes of decentralisation: Water reform and social implications in Mexico. World Development, 34(11), 1977–1995.

Zheng, Y., & Flanagan, S. (2017). Privatising water: Lessons from global experience. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 33(1), 1–15.

Abdeldayem, A., & Dulaimi, M. (2019). Lessons from UK water privatisation. International Journal of Project Management, 37(2), 178–190.

Adamou, A., Anastasiou, I., & Stergiou, C. (2021). Revisiting the efficiency of water utilities: Evidence from the UK. Utilities Policy, 72, 101276.

Bakker, K. (2017). Water governance: Global water crises and the restructuring of water management. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(2), 275–286.

Booker, C. (1994). The Great Water Robbery. Duckworth.

Cairney, P., Keating, M., & Hepburn, E. (2012). The Scottish Political System Since Devolution. Imprint Academic.

Harold, A., & Hutchinson, J. (2004). Public versus private provision of water services. Public Administration, 82(2), 295–318.

Hidayat, D. (2023). Water and inequality: Revisiting the UK’s model. Water Resources Research and Policy, 18(1), 55–71.

Lynk, E. L. (1993). Privatisation, joint ventures and changes in the provision of water services in the UK. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 64(1), 103–128.

Ogden, S. G., & Anderson, F. (1995). Stakeholder perspectives in the UK water industry. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(3), 50–69.

Ogden, S. G., & Watson, R. (2008). Corporate performance and stakeholder management in the privatised water industry. Accounting Forum, 32(3), 214–228.

Reid, C., Harrison, C., & Griffiths, M. (2003). The privatisation of water in England and Wales. Water International, 28(3), 318–326.

Speight, V. (2015). The history and impact of water privatisation in the UK. Public Works Management & Policy, 20(3), 230–238.

Wang, X. (2022). Re-evaluating the UK’s water privatisation: Three decades on. Journal of Infrastructure Economics, 29(2), 89–105.

Abraham, L. (2018). Water as a human right: The Jakarta ruling and global implications. Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 22(3), 214–230.

Adams, L., Martin, P., & Singh, R. (2020). Development or deprivation? World Bank reforms and resistance in global water governance. Development Studies Review, 46(1), 37–52.

Bakker, K. (2003). An Uncooperative Commodity: Privatising Water in England and Wales. Oxford University Press.

Hamouchene, H. (2022). The struggle for water justice in North Africa. Globalisations, 19(6), 865–880.

Inglis, M. (2023). From privatisation to participation: A rights-based approach to water reform. Water International, 48(1), 12–30.

Mao, Y., & Zhao, L. (2023). Privatising the pipeline: Manila’s divided water regime. Urban Affairs Review, 59(2), 166–184.

Wu, R. (2024). Water, equity, and neoliberal decay: The Aguas Argentinas case in Argentina. International Journal of Public Policy, 49(1), 71–89.

Adams, D., & Halvorsen, K. (2014). The global water grab: A case study of corporate influence. Water Policy, 16(4), 703–721.

Baer, H. A. (2017). Water privatisation, renationalisation, and class struggle in Buenos Aires. Latin American Perspectives, 44(5), 102–120.

Chaisse, J. (2017). The Regulation of the Global Water Services Market. Edward Elgar.

Foster, M. (2020). Water rights in Indonesia: The Supreme Court ruling and implications. Asia-Pacific Journal of Human Rights and Law, 21(2), 221–238.

Huggins, C., Kirsten, E., & Zwarteveen, M. (2020). Public control in water governance: Alternatives to privatisation. Water Alternatives, 13(2), 415–429.

Juuti, P., Katko, T., & Rajala, R. (2010). Water Privatisation: Global Trends and Local Realities. Tampere University Press.

Maxwell, S. (2003). Donor perspectives on water and poverty. Overseas Development Institute Briefing Paper, 14, 1–4.

Maxwell, S. (2006). Development and global governance: The role of international institutions. Development Studies Journal, 42(3), 413–427.

Morgan, B. (2007). Water on Tap: Rights and Regulation in the Transnational Governance of Urban Water Services. Cambridge University Press.

Phoenix, M. (2004). World Bank’s role in water privatisation: Structural adjustment revisited. Global Development Review, 22(1), 91–103.

Stoler, J. (2017). Water inequality in the privatised city: A case study approach. Urban Water Journal, 14(1), 1–8.

Ameyaw, E. E., Chan, A. P. C., & Owusu-Manu, D. G. (2017). Re-municipalisation: A pathway to better public water services. Journal of Environmental Management, 196, 569–578.

Fernández, L. O., & Smith, P. J. (2006). Decentralisation and water reform in Latin America. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 27(3), 361–382.

Hall, D., & Lobina, E. (2004). Private and public interests in water and energy. Natural Resources Forum, 28(4), 268–277.

Obani, P. (2020). Human rights and the global water crisis: The privatisation debate revisited. Water International, 45(2), 103–118.

Sharma, A., & Nayak, R. (2013). Citizens against privatisation: The Manila and Cochabamba cases. Urban Studies Journal, 50(2), 333–350.

Bates, S. (2010). Public perception and performance of privatised water services. Journal of Environmental Policy, 22(4), 317–334.

Hyde, M., Davey, J., & Nelson, B. (2007). Trust and governance in water service delivery. Water International, 32(2), 360–372.

Li, X., Gonzalez, R., & Padilla, C. (2024). Social backlash in privatised urban services: A comparative analysis. Urban Governance Review, 9(1), 55–72.

Little, R. (2015). Corporate accountability in public utility privatisation. Global Governance Journal, 21(3), 299–314.

Munro, W., & Kweka, O. (2021). Water rights, resistance, and remunicipalization in Sub-Saharan Africa. Water Alternatives, 14(1), 145–161.

Rahaman, M. M., Varis, O., & Kajander, T. (2013). Water privatisation and public trust. Sustainability, 5(6), 2259–2279.

Rothenberger, D., Ouedraogo, B., & Dao, K. (2005). Urban water privatisation: Risks and alternatives. Development in Practice, 15(2), 230–240.

 

Owning the Flow: Global Lessons from Water Acquisitions and Their Reversal

Author : AM Tris Hardyanto

 

The High Stakes Behind Water Acquisitions

Water is no longer just a utility—it’s a contested power. Around the world, the quiet wave of water acquisitions is reshaping not only who manages supply, but who holds control over the future. From corporate takeovers to community resistance, these deals often prioritize profit over people, embedding financial risks, hidden contracts, and legal shields that sideline public interest. Yet, amid backlash in cities like Cochabamba, Buenos Aires, and Jakarta, a new movement is emerging—one that reclaims water as a public good, governed by accountability, rights, and equity. This is not just a fight over pipes; it’s a fight for sovereignty, justice, and the right to live with dignity.

1        Introduction

1.1      Overview of Water Sector Acquisitions

Water, as an essential public good and a fundamental human right, plays a critical role in sustaining life and supporting societal functions. The recognition of Water as a vital resource underscores the necessity for it to be managed effectively to ensure equitable access for all. Across the globe, water privatisation and acquisitions have emerged as notable trends in the water sector, driven by factors including urbanisation, population growth, and climate change challenges. Increasingly, private corporations have sought to acquire water utilities and services, framing these initiatives as pathways towards efficiency and innovation in water management (Correa et al., 2020). However, this commodification raises significant concerns about the implications for public welfare, as private interests may often clash with the overarching need for access to safe, clean Water for all individuals (Rajala et al., 2019; Dugard, 2010).

The advent of water acquisitions has been marked by a divergence in outcomes, with some regions experiencing significant improvements in water service delivery while others have faced inequities and limited access for vulnerable populations. The consequences of such acquisitions highlight the urgent need for critical evaluation of water governance models, particularly in the face of a global water crisis that exacerbates issues of sustainability and social justice (Li et al., 2024; Lobina, 2016). The core challenge lies in identifying a balance between the financial interests of shareholders and the public's right to access safe and sufficient water supplies. In this sense, it is imperative to scrutinise ongoing trends and assess their impact on community welfare and ecological sustainability, thereby shedding light on the shifting paradigms in global water management (Henkel, 2016; Kvartiuk, 2016).

The necessity for comprehensive assessments of these acquisitions extends beyond mere economic analyses; they must also incorporate frameworks for public accountability and environmental stewardship. The assessment of stakeholder interests, including those of marginalised communities disproportionately affected by water governance decisions, remains crucial in achieving better outcomes. In this context, restructuring and re-evaluating previously privatised water assets must be approached not solely as a technical exercise but as a socio-political endeavour that prioritises human rights and community needs (Jordà-Capdevila & Casals, 2019; Lobina, 2016).

1.2      Purpose of the Article

This article aims to uncover the hidden questions and risks associated with water acquisitions—a landscape replete with complexities that extend beyond the immediate financial gains often cited by proponents of privatisation. Environmental implications and social equity serve as key undercurrents of this inquiry, as stakeholders seek to comprehend the actual costs and benefits of privatising water resources. Lessons drawn from a diverse array of global case studies will inform this analysis, providing insights into the varied outcomes of water acquisition initiatives and their reversals (Kvartiuk, 2016; Rasul et al., 2019).

We will explore how different contexts—ranging from successful public re-municipalisation efforts in places like Paris and Buenos Aires to persistent struggles in South Africa and Flint, Michigan—serve as critical learning opportunities for stakeholders navigating the turbulent waters of water governance (Lobina, 2016; Dugard, 2010). By dissecting these case studies, we aim to delineate best practices, recognise the signs of failure, and advocate for models of governance that honour Water as an essential public good, reinforcing the legitimacy of public intervention in water management practices. Ultimately, the objective is to foster a better understanding of the interplay between governance structures and community outcomes, advocating for a more just and equitable approach to water management that aligns with global human rights standards (Gambino et al., 2020); Ukpai, 2022).

 

1.3      Detailed Case Studies and Analysis

1.3.1     Public vs. Private Water Provision

The case of water privatisation in Cochabamba, Bolivia, serves as an emblematic example of the repercussions that arise when Water is treated as a commodity. Following the privatisation of the local water supply, the city experienced an acute price increase, which ignited widespread protests and led to the eventual ousting of the private firm in charge. The episode highlighted the fundamental misalignment between profit motives and the ethical obligation to provide Water as a public commodity (Lobina, 2016; Dugard, 2010). Similar patterns can be observed in other regions where privatisation has resulted in access disparities, thereby questioning the viability of market mechanisms in managing essential resources.

In contrast, the example of re-municipalisation in Melbourne, Australia, demonstrates a successful shift back to public control of water services, following challenges faced under privatisation. The city reported improvements in service delivery and community engagement when governance was re-centred around public accountability and local needs (Gambino et al., 2020; Rajala et al., 2019; Lobina, 2016). This transition indicated that public ownership could lead to enhanced investments in infrastructure without compromising accessibility.

1.3.2    Evaluating Stakeholder Perspectives

A critical dimension of understanding water acquisitions pertains to the varied perspectives of distinct stakeholder groups. Policymakers and investor stakeholders often prioritise profitability and efficiency metrics, shaping narratives that promote privatisation as a solution for water management challenges (Otaki et al., 2022; Rasul et al., 2019). However, consumers, notably those from marginalised communities, perceive their needs through a different lens, often emphasising the importance of access, affordability, and transparency in governance processes.

Moreover, public perception studies reveal alarming discrepancies in community understanding and satisfaction regarding drinking water quality, illustrated starkly in the findings from Bekasi, Indonesia, where considerable portions of the population lacked confidence in the safety of municipal drinking water (Dianty et al., 2022; Rajala et al., 2019). This divergence in stakeholder attitudes illustrates the complexity of achieving a unified vision for water governance amidst competing interests.

1.3.3     The Global South: Renewed Scrutiny of Privatisation Policies

Countries in the Global South have faced unique challenges in managing their water resources, often shaped by historical injustices and a legacy of colonial exploitation (Correa et al., 2020). The recent trend of remunicipalization in various locales—from France to South Africa—has sparked renewed interest in reinvigorating public governance models, positing both regulatory accountability and community-centric decision-making as pathways to sustainable water governance. For example, cities like Cape Town have witnessed increasing public pushback against water privatisation initiatives in favour of more equitable and fair water policies that prioritise citizen needs over profit (Zhang et al., 2023; Lobina, 2016).

This growing scepticism of privatisation policies converges with global movements advocating for Water as a human right, thereby reshaping the discourse around public goods (Ukpai, 2022). Innovations such as community-led infrastructure projects underscore the potential of localised governance approaches that elevate public interest over corporate profit motives (Kvartiuk, 2016; Correa et al., 2020).

 

2        Section 1: Key Questions to Ask Before Water Acquisitions

2.1       Who Truly Benefits—Public Interest or Shareholder Returns?

The question of who benefits from water acquisitions is crucial in the discourse surrounding public versus private interests. Water, regarded as a public good and human right, often comes under threat when financial motives overshadow community welfare. This tension materialises particularly starkly in case studies of privatisation, such as that of Thames Water in the UK. Upon its privatisation in 1989, Thames Water was expected to improve service efficiency through private sector management (Correa et al., 2020). However, substantial increases in customer bills and concerns regarding service quality soon followed, raising critical questions about the actual beneficiaries of such arrangements. Research indicates that while operational efficiencies may be realised, they often come at the cost of public welfare, demonstrating an evident prioritisation of shareholder returns over community access to essential services (Rajala et al., 2019; Dugard, 2010).

The aftermath of Thames Water's privatisation ultimately serves as a cautionary tale, revealing that profit-seeking behaviours compromised the initial promises of enhanced service quality. Activists and policymakers alike have called for a reassessment of such models, advocating instead for governance structures that align water management with the interests of public health and equity rather than short-term financial gains (Li et al., 2024). This case clearly illustrates the need for a balanced approach that prioritises community welfare as much as profitability.

2.2      Are There Confidentiality Clauses Limiting Public Scrutiny or Policy Reforms?

Confidentiality clauses in the context of water acquisitions pose significant risks to transparency and public engagement. Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAS) and long-term locking clauses can prevent scrutiny and impede necessary policy reforms that protect public interests (Lobina, 2016). Such contractual mechanisms can shield decision-making processes from public oversight, effectively removing accountability from water service providers. For instance, the use of stabilisation clauses allows companies to guarantee against adverse regulatory changes, which can prevent necessary policy adjustments for improving water quality or service delivery (Henkel, 2016).

One prominent example is found in the contracts that governed previous water acquisitions by multinational corporations in various global contexts. These often included clauses that inhibited the ability of governments to adapt regulations in response to changing public needs (Kvartiuk, 2016). Consequently, this situation underscores the importance of ensuring that future acquisitions are accompanied by frameworks that promote transparency, allowing for meaningful public discourse and potential policy adjustments that are in the collective interest (Jordà-Capdevila & Casals, 2019).

2.3      What Protections Exist Against Financial Engineering and Asset Stripping?

The risks associated with leveraged buyouts (LBOS) and other financial engineering strategies in water acquisitions require careful consideration. Such financial manoeuvres can lead to asset stripping, ultimately jeopardising the long-term viability of water utilities and the services they provide to communities (Rasul et al., 2019). Case studies, including that of Thames Water following its privatisation, illustrate these risks vividly; the company faced increasing debt levels as private owners extracted substantial dividends while investing minimally in infrastructure improvement (Gambino et al., 2020; Ukpai, 2022).

Regulatory frameworks designed to counteract such practices must be robust and enforceable; they could include measures to cap dividend payouts, mandate reinvestment in infrastructure, and establish rigorous oversight mechanisms to ensure that financial practices align with the expected standards of public service (Otaki et al., 2022). Evidence suggests that safeguarding against excessive financial engineering not only protects community access to water resources but also enhances the overall sustainability of water service provisioning (Dianty et al., 2022).

2.4      Are Water Rights or Natural Resources Being Permanently Transferred or Collateralised?

The implications of transferring control over water rights or natural resources through acquisitions can have profound and often dire consequences for local communities. Permanent transfers of water rights—primarily when undertaken by multinational entities—risk severing local populations from access to their natural resources (Zhang et al., 2023; Tiwale, 2025). A poignant example is the controversy surrounding water extraction initiatives by major beverage corporations, where residents have raised alarms over their diminishing access to water resources redirected for profit (Blazy et al., 2021; Kastner, 2014).

The accompanying loss of local control over essential resources reiterates the need for stringent regulations to ensure that any acquisition agreements respect existing water rights and prioritise the welfare of local populations (Mitsi et al., 2017). Consequently, frameworks that facilitate community engagement and provide legal pathways for residents to contest detrimental water rights transfers are critical in maintaining equitable access to water resources (Barouch et al., 2012).

2.5       Is the Acquisition Designed to Bypass Democratic Oversight?

The risks of investment treaties, particularly those including Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses, can significantly affect the ability of governments to regulate water services effectively. Such mechanisms often empower corporations to legally challenge governmental regulations that they view as detrimental to their interests, thereby undermining democratic oversight intended to protect public welfare (Kwatra et al., 2015).

High-profile legal disputes reflect the contentious nature of this dynamic, as exemplified by the case of Suez versus Argentina, where Suez challenged the Argentine government's regulatory decisions amidst economic turmoil (Tuleneva, 2018). This instance highlights gaps in legal frameworks that can undermine national sovereignty and prioritisation of public interest in the management of essential services such as water delivery. Comprehensive reforms are needed to establish clear limits on ISDS applications while simultaneously reinforcing local governance mechanisms that prioritise community well-being in decision-making processes related to water management (Barouch et al., 2013).

 

3         Types of Water Sector Acquisitions

3.1      Public-to-Private Acquisitions (Privatisation)

Public-to-private acquisitions, commonly referred to as privatisation, involve transferring the ownership and management of water utilities from public entities to private corporations. One of the landmark cases is the privatisation of Thames Water in the UK in 1989. Originally public, Thames Water was expected to function more efficiently under private management, which proponents argued would generate substantial benefits for consumers (Correa et al., 2020). However, the outcomes post-privatisation were mixed, revealing a trend where profit motives often took precedence over public welfare. Despite an initial surge in capital investment, service quality declined in several significant areas, resulting in increased water bills and concerns about supply interruptions (Rajala et al., 2019; Dugard, 2010).

Globally, the mixed outcomes of privatisation efforts permeate the discourse surrounding water management. For instance, the privatisation effects observed in South America, such as in the case of Bolivian water systems, highlighted significant public backlash against rate hikes and decreased service reliability (Li et al., 2024). These experiences align with criticisms asserting that privatised water management frequently fails to uphold the standards expected of public service provision. As evidenced, while market-driven approaches have indeed led to operational efficiencies in select instances, they also raise fundamental questions about the accessibility and affordability of Water as a basic human right (Lobina, 2016).

3.2      Private-to-Private Acquisitions

In the realm of private-to-private acquisitions, one noteworthy example is YTL Power's acquisition of Ranhill SAJ, a water utility company in Malaysia. Following the acquisition, YTL Power strategically positioned itself to expand its portfolio and harness operational synergies (Henkel, 2016). This acquisition demonstrated how private firms often pursue mergers not only to consolidate resources but also to enhance operational efficiencies through shared technologies and management systems.

Strategic motivations for private acquisitions typically encompass market expansion and the pursuit of economies of scale, as illustrated in this example. Companies often aim to capitalise on existing customer bases for improved revenues while streamlining operations under a singular corporate framework (Kvartiuk, 2016). Nonetheless, the transition from one private entity to another can yield risks associated with service delivery quality. Stakeholders may worry that the competitive pressures of private ownership could result in service cutbacks or prioritise operational profit over community service standards (Jordà-Capdevila & Casals, 2019). Hence, even within the private sector, vigilance and regulatory frameworks are essential to ensure that public interests are not compromised during such shifts.

3.3      Private-to-Public Acquisitions (Remunicipalization)

Private-to-public acquisitions, characterised as remunicipalization, reflect a growing global trend where municipalities reclaim management of essential services, particularly Water. An exemplary case is Eau de Paris, which returned the management of the city's water supply to public hands in 2010 after nearly two decades of privatisation (Rasul et al., 2019). This shift was driven by public dissatisfaction with service quality and a desire for greater transparency and accountability. Following remunicipalization, Eau de Paris committed to reinvesting in infrastructure and improving community engagement, resulting in not only enhanced service delivery but also reduced costs for consumers (Gambino et al., 2020).

The trend towards remunicipalization demonstrates a broader movement to re-align water governance structures with public values that prioritise social equity and public welfare over shareholder returns. A growing body of literature highlights that such transitions are often motivated by the failures of privatisation and the need for enhanced accountability in water management (Ukpai, 2022). Statistical analyses indicate that remunicipalized services frequently witness increased investment in infrastructure and community-oriented policies, fostering trust among residents (Otaki et al., 2022).

3.4      Public-to-Public Acquisitions

Public-to-public acquisitions involve the consolidation of water services within the public sector itself, often aiming to improve governance and reduce operational inefficiencies. A notable case is Halifax Water in Canada, where water systems underwent consolidation to enhance efficiency and service delivery (Dianty et al., 2022). The consolidation aimed to unify various public drinking water systems under a single administrative body, allowing for better resource allocation, decision-making, and operational transparency.

The collaborative approach in public-to-public acquisitions not only maximises resource efficiency but also reinforces the legitimacy of Water as a communal shared resource. Evidence suggests that such configurations can lead to improved outcomes concerning regulatory compliance and service reliability, thereby addressing the systemic issues prevalent in fragmented service provision (Zhang et al., 2023). Moreover, an increasing body of research advocates for the benefits of inter-municipal cooperatives in pooling resources and expertise, which ultimately benefits consumers while maintaining public oversight (Tiwale, 2025).

 

4         Strategic Motivations Behind Acquisitions

4.1      Utility Portfolio Expansion

Utility portfolio expansion is a fundamental objective when companies engage in acquisition activities, enabling them to enhance their service offerings and market presence. A notable example of this is Suez's acquisition of GE Water, a strategic move that significantly broadened Suez's capabilities in water treatment and management technologies (Correa et al., 2020). By integrating the advanced technologies and innovations of GE Water, Suez aimed to achieve economies of scale, reduce operational costs, and diversify its service portfolio (Rajala et al., 2019). This acquisition not only represented a tactical expansion but also fostered diversification, allowing Suez to address a broader range of client needs and respond effectively to the evolving water landscape.

The benefits associated with portfolio expansion through acquisitions include improved market competitiveness, the opportunity to leverage synergies, and the enhancement of service quality. Furthermore, such strategic acquisitions can contribute to increased customer loyalty as firms are better positioned to meet diverse customer demands (Dugard, 2010). However, it is critical to recognise that these endeavours are not without risks. Acquirers must effectively manage the integration of new assets and cultures to realise the anticipated benefits, as failure to do so can lead to operational disruptions and hinder the expected gains from the acquisition (Li et al., 2024).

4.2      Securing Industrial Water Supply

Another strategic motivation behind acquisitions in the water sector involves securing industrial water supply, particularly for corporations in resource-intensive industries. A controversial example is Nestlé's acquisition of groundwater rights in various locations, such as Michigan. This acquisition garnered significant public scrutiny as the company's activities raised questions about the balance between commercial interests and community needs (Lobina, 2016). As Nestlé extracted large quantities of groundwater for its bottled water brands, local communities expressed concerns about diminishing water reserves and the potential threat to their access to safe drinking water.

The tensions that arose from these actions highlighted broader issues related to corporate ownership of water resources, suggesting that such acquisitions can lead to conflicts between profit-oriented strategies and the long-term sustainability of local water supplies (Henkel, 2016; Kvartiuk, 2016). The implications of such acquisitions reveal the necessity for robust regulatory frameworks that prioritise community welfare, safeguard ecosystems, and prevent the over-extraction of scarce water resources (Jordà-Capdevila & Casals, 2019). In this context, it is essential for acquiring entities to engage transparently with local stakeholders to mitigate backlash and better align their operations with sustainable practices that respect public interest.

4.3      Asset Diversification

Asset diversification represents a critical strategic motivation for firms seeking to enhance resilience by spreading risk across different operational areas. Ranhill Holdings, for example, pursued a diversification strategy by expanding its footprint not only in water services but also in the power generation and wastewater management segments (Rasul et al., 2019). This multifaceted approach was designed to stabilise revenues and mitigate risks associated with the cyclical nature of water supply services, which can vary significantly due to climate conditions and regulatory changes.

The importance of risk mitigation through diversification cannot be overstated; by operating across varied sectors, companies like Ranhill can capitalise on economies of scope, where the costs saved in one area enhance profitability in another (Gambino et al., 2020). Additionally, this strategic orientation allows firms to safeguard themselves against market volatility; for instance, downturns in one operational segment may be offset by stability or growth in another (Ukpai, 2022). Firms that successfully implement diversified strategies are often better equipped to weather economic fluctuations, thus solidifying their market positions as comprehensive service providers in the Water and utility sector.

4.4      Operational Synergies

Operational synergies are a prominent motivator for mergers and acquisitions, embodying the desire to enhance efficiency and drive long-term profitability and sustainability. A key example is the merger between Veolia and Suez, two giants in the water and waste management industries. The merger aimed to consolidate assets, eliminate duplication of efforts, and improve service delivery by merging the strengths of both companies (Otaki et al., 2022).

This strategic consolidation allowed for a comprehensive pooling of resources, knowledge, and capabilities that can lead to enhanced efficiencies and cost savings. Operational synergies from such mergers can yield benefits such as reduced operational redundancies, streamlined supply chains, and shared best practices across the integrated entity (Dianty et al., 2022). Moreover, they can position the new entity to leverage economies of scale, enhancing competitive advantages and improving service offerings across the board (Zhang et al., 2023). However, the successful realisation of these synergies depends heavily on effective integration strategies and meticulous change management processes to align the differing cultures and structures of the merging organisations (Tiwale, 2025).

 

5         Financial Considerations in Acquisitions

5.1       Valuation and Discount Pricing

Valuation and pricing strategies are pivotal aspects when considering acquisitions in the water sector. A noteworthy case is YTL Power's acquisition of Ranhill SAJ, where the transaction was executed at a discounted price that reflected the perceived risks and potential synergies (Correa et al., 2020). The strategic fit of this acquisition not only enabled YTL Power to broaden its operational footprint in Malaysia but also allowed for long-term financial gains by capitalising on economies of scale and operational efficiencies inherent in water management (Rajala et al., 2019).

In transactions like this, it is essential to assess the long-term financial outlook alongside current market conditions. A discounted acquisition approach can serve as a mechanism to mitigate risks, allowing companies to enter promising markets without overextending their financial commitments at the onset of the relationship (Dugard, 2010). Thus, forward-looking analyses that focus on integration, operational scalability, and potential growth trajectories play crucial roles in appraising acquisition opportunities. Ultimately, the success hinges on thorough due diligence to ensure that the future earnings potential justifies the initial discounted price and supports sustainable operational results (Li et al., 2024; Lobina, 2016).

5.2       Debt Loading Risks

Debt loading presents a significant risk during and after acquisitions, particularly within utility sectors where capital requirements can be substantial. A vivid example is Thames Water, which experienced severe financial struggles post-privatisation, primarily attributed to excessive debt levels imposed by the private equity owners (Henkel, 2016; Kvartiuk, 2016). The financial burden from debt loading diverted essential capital away from operational improvements, ultimately impacting service delivery and corporate sustainability (Jordà-Capdevila & Casals, 2019).

The importance of assessing post-acquisition financial health cannot be overstated. The consequences of high leverage can not only hinder investment in infrastructure but may also lead to operational inefficiencies and reduced service quality, as seen in the Thames Water case (Rasul et al., 2019). Such financial distress further illustrates the necessity of proactive financial management strategies that balance acquisition financing through debt with robust risk assessment frameworks to monitor and mitigate long-term financial health post-acquisition (Gambino et al., 2020). Regulators and stakeholders must remain vigilant to ensure that service providers maintain acceptable financial ratios that prioritise operational viability while also safeguarding public interests (Ukpai, 2022).

 

6        Broader Implications of Water Sector Acquisitions

6.1      Economic Development Enablement

Water infrastructure plays a crucial role in enabling economic development, as evidenced by partnerships such as those between Manila Water and the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA). This collaboration exemplifies how reliable water services can create an attractive environment for foreign investment, effectively stimulating local and national economic growth (Correa et al., 2020). By providing a consistent water supply and improved sanitation services, water utilities make economic zones more viable, fostering regional development and attracting businesses that prioritise operational efficiency and resource availability. As a result, strong water management frameworks not only meet the immediate needs of local communities but also catalyse larger-scale economic opportunities (Rajala et al., 2019; Dugard, 2010).

Additionally, successful water investments can yield positive externalities, such as job creation and improved health outcomes, which further augment economic resilience. Infrastructure investment in the water sector can spur downstream industries and enhance productivity across various economic sectors, demonstrating the interconnected nature of Water and economic prosperity (Li et al., 2024). Therefore, it becomes imperative for stakeholders to recognise the strategic importance of water management in fostering broader economic development frameworks, particularly within emerging markets.

6.2      Public Accountability and Resistance

The implications of water sector acquisitions extend to public accountability, often manifesting as community resistance against privatisation attempts. A significant historical case is the Cochabamba Water War in Bolivia, where the privatisation of the municipal water supply led to widespread protests and civil unrest (Lobina, 2016). The local population reacted against escalating water tariffs, perceived loss of access to a vital resource, and the prioritisation of profit over the public good. This episode highlighted the critical lessons regarding equity and human rights in water provision, emphasising that Water should be treated as a universal right rather than a commodity (Henkel, 2016).

The Cochabamba Water War encapsulates the potential for large-scale public resistance against neoliberal water governance models. It underscores the urgent need for frameworks that emphasise transparency, community involvement, and accountability within water contracts. Such participatory governance models can act as safeguards against potential rights violations while ensuring that Water remains accessible to all, particularly marginalised communities that are often the hardest hit by privatisation efforts (Kvartiuk, 2016).

6.3      Hidden Risks and Systemic Issues

Water sector acquisitions can also unveil hidden risks and systemic issues, as demonstrated by the privatisation of water services in Accra, Ghana, and the engagement with Aqua Vitens Rand Ltd. The contract intended to improve service delivery was marred by operational challenges, resource misallocation, and public discontent over inadequate water quality and service interruptions (Jordà-Capdevila & Casals, 2019). These risks underscore the importance of transparent contracting processes and consumer protection measures to safeguard against the ramifications of profit-driven management approaches.

The operational failures in Accra illustrate that without upfront transparency in contracting and robust accountability measures, the outcomes of privatisation can lead to worsening service conditions, further marginalising underserved populations (Rasul et al., 2019). Moreover, contracts that lack clarity may fail to establish adequate performance metrics, ultimately compounding the systemic issues faced by water service providers and the communities they serve. Thus, emphasising consumer protection in such arrangements becomes crucial to ensure that public interests are prioritised over private financial ones (Gambino et al., 2020).

6.4      Environmental Risks

The environmental risks associated with water sector acquisitions are particularly pronounced in contexts where natural resources are exploited without adequate assessments, as exemplified by Nestlé's groundwater extraction activities in drought-prone regions. The withdrawal of significant groundwater for bottling has raised alarms about the sustainability of local water resources and the ecological health of the surrounding areas (Ukpai, 2022). This case reinforces the necessity for thorough environmental assessments as critical components of water rights management to avert potential detrimental impacts on ecosystems and long-term water sustainability.

Environmental evaluations must strive to understand both the direct and indirect consequences of water extraction practices, particularly in vulnerable regions facing climate-induced water scarcity. Assessing the ecological footprint of water use not only supports regulatory compliance but also enhances corporate social responsibility initiatives that prioritise sustainable water management practices (Otaki et al., 2022). Stakeholders in water acquisitions must recognise the imperative of integrating environmental stewardship into their operational frameworks to mitigate risks associated with resource depletion and ecological degradation (Dianty et al., 2022).

6.5      Sovereignty and ISDS Clauses

The interplay between acquisitions and state sovereignty is exemplified in international legal disputes such as Suez v. Argentina, which centres on the contentious nature of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses. These provisions enable corporations to challenge government policies that they perceive as detrimental to their investments, raising concerns about the balance of private interests with sovereign policy autonomy (Zhang et al., 2023). In this case, Argentina's regulatory changes in response to economic crises were contested, threatening the country's ability to govern its water resources effectively.

The Suez case illustrates the broader implications of ISDS mechanisms, which can potentially undermine national sovereignty and dilute the rights of states to implement policies that serve public interests (Tiwale, 2025). As such, it is critical to consider how these legal frameworks can create barriers to effective public governance, particularly in essential sectors like water management. Balancing the rights of private investors with the sovereign authority of states necessitates a nuanced approach that safeguards public interest while encouraging responsible foreign investment (Blazy et al., 2021).

 

7        Conclusion

In summary, the broader implications of water sector acquisitions encompass economic development enablement, public accountability, hidden risks, environmental concerns, and the tension between sovereignty and ISDS provisions. The diverse case studies discussed illustrate the complexity and interconnectedness of these issues in shaping outcomes within the water sector. Stakeholders must approach water acquisitions with an emphasis on sustainability, public welfare, and transparent governance to cultivate a future where water management serves the needs of both communities and the environment.

In summary, the broader implications of water sector acquisitions encompass economic development enablement, public accountability, hidden risks, environmental concerns, and the tension between sovereignty and ISDS provisions. The diverse case studies discussed illustrate the complexity and interconnectedness of these issues in shaping outcomes within the water sector. Stakeholders must approach water acquisitions with an emphasis on sustainability, public welfare, and transparent governance to cultivate a future where water management serves the needs of both communities and the environment.

7.1      Beyond the Balance Sheet: Reclaiming Water as a Public Good

A call for integrating human rights, equity, and environmental stewardship into water governance, moving past privatisation's financial lens. The terrain of global water acquisitions necessitates a multifaceted discussion that addresses not merely the financial implications of privatised water services but their broader impacts on public health, equity, and trust in governance structures. The shift towards emphasising Water as a public good must incorporate the voices of affected communities and align with human rights discourses to ensure sustainable outcomes. By extracting lessons from varied case studies and recognising the centrality of stakeholder engagement, we can work towards fostering more resilient water management systems that prioritise accessibility and environmental stewardship. Ultimately, it is crucial to recognise that effective water governance hinges upon the integration of public accountability and community stewardship, creating pathways toward sustainable and equitable management of this vital resource.

7.2      Mapping the Terrain: Understanding the Types and Stakes of Water Acquisitions

A deep dive into privatisation, remunicipalization, and inter-public transfers—and what each means for equity and access. The examination of various types of water sector acquisitions reveals a complex interplay between profit motives and public welfare. Whether through privatisation, private-to-private transitions, remunicipalization, or public-to-public consolidations, each scenario possesses unique implications for service delivery, community access, and equity in water governance. As evidence suggests, the merits and challenges of these approaches call for vigilant oversight and robust regulatory frameworks to ensure that community needs remain at the forefront of Beneath the Strategy: The Business Logic Behind Water Takeovers.

7.3      Exploring motivations like utility consolidation, industrial supply security, and asset synergy, and their implications for communities.

Water management decisions.

The strategic motivations behind water sector acquisitions encompass a wide array of considerations, including utility portfolio expansion, securing industrial water supplies, asset diversification, and the pursuit of operational synergies. Each case, from Suez's acquisition of GE Water to Nestlé's controversial groundwater acquisitions, underscores the complex interplay between profit motives and community responsibilities. While firms can realise significant benefits by strategically navigating these acquisitions, they must also prioritise sustainable practices and community engagement to ensure their operations align with broader societal needs.

7.4      Debt, Discounts, and Dividends: The Financial Mechanics of Water Deals

Lessons from valuation tactics, debt-loading risks, and financial engineering that shape long-term service quality. In summary, financial considerations in water sector acquisitions underline critical aspects such as valuation and debt management strategies. Case studies, including YTL Power's strategic approach to discounted pricing and the financial struggles of Thames Water due to debt loading, illuminate the intricacies of navigating acquisitions effectively. Thorough evaluations that factor in long-term implications for financial health and strategic fit are vital for successful integration, operational resilience, and the ultimate sustainability of water service provision.

7.5      When the Pipeline Breaks: Hidden Risks and Global Lessons from Water Takeovers

From Cochabamba to Argentina, these cases show how misaligned interests can lead to public backlash and legal battles. As this exploration into water sector acquisitions reveals, several vital takeaways emphasise the necessity for a meticulous approach in managing such complex transactions. First and foremost, water acquisitions must prioritise public welfare, transparency, and sustainability, ensuring that the fundamental human right to Water is maintained. Evidence from various global case studies highlights the inherent risks and opportunities associated with different acquisition models, including public-to-private, private-to-private, and remunicipalization efforts. These case studies—spanning the privatisation of Thames Water and the Cochabamba Water War to Suez's contestation in Argentina—demonstrate that misalignment of corporate interests with community needs can result in enduring social and environmental consequences (Correa et al., 2020; Rajala et al., 2019; Dugard, 2010; Li et al., 2024).

7.6      Law, Leverage, and the Limits of Accountability

Why strong legal frameworks and community voice are essential to preventing exploitation and ensuring sustainable access.

Furthermore, the overarching need for robust legal frameworks and regulatory oversight cannot be overstated. Transparent processes that incorporate the voice of local communities are essential to mitigate against potential exploitative practices, ensuring that Water remains accessible, equitable, and sustainable for future generations (Lobina, 2016; Henkel, 2016). The lessons derived from these scenarios indicate a shift towards embracing models of governance that bolster public accountability and prioritise environmental stewardship alongside profitability.

7.7      Turning the Tide: A New Governance Model for Water Equity

Advocating for co-governance models that unite public institutions, regulators, and communities to reclaim water justice. Call to Action. In light of these critical insights, governments, policymakers, and citizens must engage in rigorous evaluations of water acquisitions. Stakeholders must remain vigilant, advocating for frameworks that preserve Water as a public good rather than a commercial commodity. A collaborative approach, where local communities, regulatory bodies, and private entities function together, is vital in safeguarding water resources while contributing to sustainable economic development (Kvartiuk, 2016; Jordà-Capdevila & Casals, 2019).

7.8      Water is Political: Empowering Citizens to Defend the Commons

Mobilising civic engagement and rights-based advocacy to protect Water as a non-negotiable public resource.

Citizens have a crucial role in holding authorities accountable, ensuring that water governance aligns with public interests and broader sustainability goals. By fostering an informed and engaged citizenry, the conversation around water management can evolve into one that emphasises rights, equity, and protection of natural resources. Ultimately, collective Action and commitment are essential to ensure that Water remains a public good that is accessible to all.

 

References

Akinyi, Agwa Maryline, Odundo, Paul A. (2018). Revenue Generation Aspects That Influence Financial Sustainability of Public Water Utilities in Kenya: The Case of Homa Bay Water and Sewerage Company Limited. Asian Business Research, 3(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.20849/abr.v3i2.370

Boulos, Paul F., Jacobsen, Laura B., Heath, J. Erick, Kamojjala, Sri (2014). Real‐time modelling of water distribution systems: A case study. Opflow, 106(9), . https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2014.106.0076

Rudebeck, Thérèse (2022). Framing water as a financial risk: Reviewing the processes shaping a narrative. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Water, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1596

Tebbutt, R. J., Guy, John Adam, Cochin, R. J., Lester, J.N. (2002). Investment Appraisal in the Water Industry of England and Wales. Water and Environment Journal, 16(2), 100-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-6593.2002.tb00378.x

Zeff, Harrison B., Characklis, Gregory W. (2013). Managing Water utility financial risks through third‐party index insurance contracts. Water Resources Research, 49(8), 4939-4951. https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20364

Mugabi, Josses, Njiru, Cyrus (2006). Marketing urban water services: information needs for water utility managers in developing countries. Water Science & Technology Water Supply, 6(5), 17-25. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2006.715

Ganjidoost, Amin, Haas, Carl T., Knight, Mark A., Unger, Andrè (2022). Integrated asset management of urban Water and wastewater systems. Awwa Water Science, 4(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/aws2.1309

Telfah, Dua’a B., HALASHEH, MAHA, Ribbe, Lars, Roth, Giorgio (2017). PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES IN WATER SERVICES PROVISION. Nan. https://doi.org/10.2495/wrm170031

Njiru, Cyrus, Sansom, Kevin (2003). Strategic marketing of water services in developing countries. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Municipal Engineer, 156(2), 143-148. https://doi.org/10.1680/muen.2003.156.2.143

Kayaga, Sam (2013). Effective water safety management of piped water networks in low-income urban settlements. Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 3(3), 402-410. https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2013.105

Karamage, Fidele, Zhang, Chi, Ndayisaba, Felix, Nahayo, Lamek, Kayiranga, Alphonse, Omifolaji, James Kehinde, Shao, Hua, Umuhoza, Alice, Nsengiyumva, Jean Baptiste, Liu, Tong (2016). The Need for Awareness of Drinking Water Loss Reduction for Sustainable Water Resource Management in Rwanda. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 4(10), 74-87. https://doi.org/10.4236/gep.2016.410005

Yakymova, Larysa, Kuz, Vasyl (2019). The use of discriminant analysis in the assessment of a municipal company's financial health. Economics & Sociology, 12(2), 64-78. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789x.2019/12-2/4

Hassanein, Amr A.G., Khalifa, Reham (2007). Financial and operational performance indicators applied to public and private water and wastewater utilities. Engineering Construction & Architectural Management, 14(5), 479-492. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980710780773

Gorelick, David, Gold, David, Reed, Patrick M., Characklis, Gregory W. (2022). Impact of Inter‐Utility Agreements on Cooperative Regional Water Infrastructure Investment and Management Pathways. Water Resources Research, 58(3). https://doi.org/10.1029/2021wr030700

Zeff, Harrison B., Kasprzyk, Joseph, Herman, Jonathan D., Reed, Patrick M., Characklis, Gregory W. (2014). Navigating financial and supply reliability tradeoffs in regional drought management portfolios. Water Resources Research, 50(6), 4906-4923. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013wr015126

Murrar, Abdullah, Batra, Madan M., Rodger, James A. (2021). Service quality and customer satisfaction are antecedents of the financial sustainability of water service providers. The TQM Journal, 33(8), 1867-1885. https://doi.org/10.1108/tqm-05-2020-0104

Tyszer, Magdalena, Chmielowska, Anna, Tomaszewska, Barbara (2020). Initial recognition of the possibilities of using abandoned oil and gas wells to desalinate produced Water. E3S Web of Conferences, 154, 5002. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202015405002

Bartholomew, Timothy, Mauter, Meagan S. (2016). Multi-Objective Optimisation Model for Minimising Cost and Environmental Impact in Shale Gas Water and Wastewater Management. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 4(7), 3728-3735. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.6b00372

Julius, Christine Mawia, Kalunda, Elizabeth (2021). The Influence of Utility Efficiency on Financial Sustainability of Water Service Providers in Kenya. nan, 11(1), 103-113. https://doi.org/10.58216/kjri.v11i1.98

Baum, Rachel, Characklis, Gregory W., Serre, Marc L. (2018). Effects of Geographic Diversification on Risk Pooling to Mitigate Drought‐Related Financial Losses for Water Utilities. Water Resources Research, 54(4), 2561-2579. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017wr021468

Geremew, Abraham, Nijhawan, Anisha, Mengistie, Bezatu, Mekbib, Dinku, Flint, Adrian, Howard, Guy (2024). Climate resilience of small-town water utilities in Eastern Ethiopia. Plos Water, 3(5), e0000158. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000158

Rogers, Jeffrey W., Louis, Garrick (2006). A financial resource allocation model for regional water systems. International Transactions in Operational Research, 14(1), 25-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-3995.2006.00573.x

Grant, Stanley B., Duong, Kimberly, Rippy, Megan A., Pierce, Gregory, Feldman, David L., Zanetti, Enrique, McNulty, Amy L. (2020). From yards to cities: a simple and generalisable probabilistic framework for upscaling outdoor water conservation behaviour. Environmental Research Letters, 15(5), 54010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7c1e

Ji, Yuguang, Ji, Maoli, Yang, Gang, Dong, Shulan (2023). Water resource management and financial performance in high water‐sensitive corporations. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(5), 2419-2434. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2493

Gorelick, David, Gold, David, Reed, Patrick M., Characklis, Gregory W. (2021). Impact of inter-utility agreements on cooperative regional water infrastructure investment and management pathways. Nan. https://doi.org/10.1002/essoar.10507429.1

Ganjidoost, Amin, Knight, Mark A., Unger, Andrè, Haas, Carl T. (2021). Performance Modelling and Simulation for Water Distribution Networks. Frontiers in Water, 3, https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2021.718215

Fülöp, Kinga-Erzsébet, Fülöp, Árpád-Zoltán (2023). THE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT OF WATER AND SEWERAGE OPERATORS IN ROMANIA THROUGH THE KEY PERFORMANCE INDEX. Journal of Financial Studies, 8(15), 106-118. https://doi.org/10.55654/jfs.2023.8.15.06

Haider, Husnain, Sadiq, Rehan, Tesfamariam, Solomon (2014). Selecting performance indicators for small and medium-sized water utilities: Multi-criteria analysis using<i>ELECTRE</i>method. Urban Water Journal, 12(4), 305-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062x.2014.900089

Gardner, J, Kohls, Elisabeth, Gingerich, Daniel B. (2024). Assessing the Impact of the PFAS Rule on Water Affordability: Evidence from Ohio. Acs Es&t Water, 5(1), 188-196. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.4c00787

Daigger, Glen T. (2009). Evolving Urban Water and Residuals Management Paradigms: Water Reclamation and Reuse, Decentralisation, and Resource Recovery. Water Environment Research, 81(8), 809-823. https://doi.org/10.2175/106143009x425898

Hidayat, Hidayat, Zakri, Azriyenni Azhari, Satria, Iman (2021). Feasibility Study of Hydro Power Plant (HPP) Lubuak Gadang Sangir South Solok. International Journal of Electrical Energy and Power System Engineering, 4(1), 121-126. https://doi.org/10.31258/ijeepse.4.1.121-126

Treuer, Galen, Koebele, Elizabeth A., Deslatte, Aaron, Ernst, Kathleen, Garcia, Margaret, Manago, Kim (2017). A narrative method for analysing transitions in urban water management: The case of the <scp>M</scp>iami‐<scp>D</scp>ade <scp>W</scp>ater and <scp>S</scp>ewer <scp>D</scp>epartment. Water Resources Research, 53(1), 891-908. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016wr019658

Crapeau, Mark (2000). Changing the Face of the Water Industry. Opflow, 92(11), 60-66. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1551-8833.2000.tb09048.x