RECLAIMING THE FLOW: GLOBAL LESSONS FROM WATER PRIVATISATION AND THE RETURN TO PUBLIC CONTROL

 

Author : AM Tris Hardyanto

RECLAIMING THE FLOW: GLOBAL LESSONS FROM WATER PRIVATISATION AND THE RETURN TO PUBLIC CONTROL

 

This work examines the global trajectory of water governance, focusing on the rise and subsequent retreat of privatisation in favour of public control. Through a multidisciplinary lens, it explores how neoliberal reforms commodified water, leading to widespread price hikes, service inequality, and governance failures. In response, over 300 documented cases of remunicipalization—the reversion of water services to public ownership—have emerged across continents. Drawing from case studies in Cochabamba, Paris, Berlin, Jakarta, and beyond, the text illustrates how grassroots activism, judicial rulings, and civic engagement have driven this shift. The remunicipalization movement represents a transformative paradigm rooted in democratic governance, transparency, financial equity, and climate resilience. Ultimately, the study positions water not as a commodity, but as a fundamental human right, asserting that public trust, not private profit, must anchor water policy in an age of inequality and climate disruption.

 

1         The Rise and Retreat of Privatisation

 

1.1      From Public Good to Commodity

The commodification of water in the late 20th century marked a significant turning point in global water governance. Under the influence of neoliberal economic policies promoted by international financial institutions, water services—once universally regarded as public goods—were reframed as market commodities. This shift was central to the structural adjustment programs imposed across the Global South, forcing governments to reduce public spending and liberalise essential services, including water (Araral & Wang, 2013).

Governments, especially in developing countries, were urged to embrace privatisation as a pathway to efficiency. Water management was no longer driven by public welfare but by financial profitability. The promise was that competition would lower costs and improve service delivery. However, the reality proved starkly different.

“When your faucet turns off—not because of drought, but because you cannot afford the bill—you begin to question who really owns water.”

This powerful reflection encapsulates the human cost of treating water as a product rather than a right. Across continents, from the hills of Bolivia to the boulevards of Paris, citizens began to push back. Privatisation, initially touted as a silver bullet for public inefficiencies, became synonymous with rising tariffs, deteriorating infrastructure, and growing inequality (Hassan, 2011; Côrtes et al., 2021).

Private operators betrayed the promise of efficient, well-financed water services through widespread underinvestment and disregard for local and Indigenous systems. In Brazil, for example, the exclusion of poor communities from privatised networks fueled public outcry and grassroots advocacy for remunicipalization (Libânio, 2020; Gonçalves, 2017).

 

1.2      Privatisation’s Global Shortfalls

The failures of privatised water systems are well-documented and global in scope. Empirical studies have repeatedly shown that private water operators often prioritise short-term returns over long-term sustainability, leading to a range of adverse outcomes:

• Price Hikes: Users in privatised systems frequently faced unaffordable tariffs, especially in low-income areas (Ioris, 2012; Côrtes et al., 2021).
• Underinvestment: Contrary to promises, many private firms delayed critical infrastructure upgrades, focusing instead on profit extraction (Figueroa et al., 2022).
• Inequity: Privatisation exacerbated disparities in service delivery, with marginalised communities—often rural, poor, or Indigenous—bearing the brunt of exclusion (Gonçalves, 2017).
• Erosion of Indigenous Systems: Traditional water management practices were displaced or ignored under market-based models, undermining community resilience and cultural continuity (Libânio, 2020).

In Spain and Brazil, resistance movements arose to defend public water access. These campaigns exposed the contradictions between privatisation and the principle of water as a human right (Berge et al., 2023; Gonçalves, 2017). The remunicipalization movement was born out of this discontent—a movement now documented in more than 300 global cases since the early 2000s (Figueroa et al., 2022).

 

1.3      Resistance, Reclamation, and the Birth of a New Paradigm

As privatisation faltered, civil society mobilised. Citizens reframed water governance as a matter of democracy, dignity, and accountability, rather than efficiency alone. The remunicipalization movement emerged from this context, anchored in collective resistance and informed by the practical failures of privatised models (Bulengela, 2024; Krisnajaya et al., 2019).

From Paris and Berlin to Jakarta and Cochabamba, cities reasserted public control, motivated by the principle that water is not a commodity, but a fundamental human right (Gonçalves, 2017; Figueroa et al., 2022). These remunicipalization efforts often led to better service delivery, increased transparency, and community engagement in governance.

📊 Visual Infographic Box: “25 Years of Water Privatisation: A Timeline of Crisis and Reversals”

Year	Location	Event
1989	UK	Complete privatisation of England and Wales’ water
1997	Jakarta, Indonesia	Water PPP with Aetra and Thames
2000	Cochabamba, Bolivia	Mass protests overturn privatisation
2010	Paris, France	Establishment of Eau de Paris (public utility)
2013	Berlin, Germany	City repurchases water services
2017	Jakarta, Indonesia	Supreme Court rules privatisation unconstitutional
2023	Global	Over 300 cases of remunicipalization documented

The lessons learned from these cases are converging into a new paradigm of public-citizen partnerships, where communities demand not only access to water but also a voice in its governance (Howell et al., 2023).

 

1.4      Public Governance Reimagined

Beyond simply reversing privatisation, the remunicipalization wave is ushering in new governance models. These emphasise:

• Democratic Control: Establishing participatory bodies and public boards.
• Transparency: Making financial and operational decisions open to public scrutiny.
• Accountability: Embedding ethical standards into water provision (Figueroa et al., 2022).
• Community Engagement: Including citizens in planning, monitoring, and evaluating water services (Eakin et al., 2011; Sheng-quan, 2023).

Governments respond to public pressure with reforms and systemic transformation. This shift acknowledges that water governance is not merely a technical challenge; it is deeply political, social, and moral (Ravnborg, 2016).

The resurgence of public water services reflects a broader reevaluation of what essential services mean in a world confronting inequality, climate change, and broken trust in markets. It also serves as a foundation for more inclusive and resilient infrastructure planning.

 

Privatisation once promised efficiency, innovation, and sustainability, but reality exposed its limits. As public dissatisfaction swelled, so too did a counter-movement that redefined water as a human right. The retreat from privatisation is not just a technical correction—it is a moral course correction in the global governance of water.

Chapter 2 will explore the anatomy of remunicipalization: how communities are taking back control, what challenges they face, and the blueprint for democratic water futures.

 

2         Defining Remunicipalization – A Global Wave

---

 

2.1       What is Remunicipalization?

Remunicipalization is the process of reversing privatisation by returning water services to public ownership and management. This global trend has gained significant momentum due to unmet service promises, increasing tariffs, citizen activism, and legal mandates affirming water as a human right (Porcher & Saussier, 2017; Bel, 2020). Since 2000, over 300 documented cases of remunicipalization have occurred, signalling a transformative shift in water governance (Berge et al., 2023).

The underlying motivations for remunicipalization reflect widespread public dissatisfaction with privatised water systems. Common grievances include a lack of infrastructure investment, opacity in contractual agreements, rising costs, and exclusionary practices. These shortcomings have sparked legal referendums, community resistance, and a broad-based push for democratic and transparent management of water services (Albalate et al., 2024; Gonçalves, 2017).

More than a mere administrative shift, remunicipalization embodies a moral and political stance: Water must follow the principles of public trust and equity, not the logic of profit. This growing movement draws strength from cities both affluent and under-resourced, indicating its universal relevance and ethical appeal (Bel, 2020).

 

2.2      Global Drivers of Reversal

Structural failures and socio-political responses drive the remunicipalization movement.

• Financial Failures: Privatised systems have frequently failed to deliver promised investments, leading to deteriorating infrastructure and declining service quality (Rodina, 2018).
• Escalating Tariffs: Tariff hikes under private operators have made water unaffordable for many, especially in vulnerable communities (Yasin et al., 2020).
• Legal and Civic Action: Court rulings, referendums, and citizen-led lawsuits have affirmed the right to water, often catalysing the transition back to public control (Razavi, 2019).
• Transparency and Trust Gaps: Opaque contracts and mismanagement have eroded public trust in private operators, strengthening the call for transparent public governance (Berge et al., 2023).

Community-driven mobilisations have proved especially powerful in triggering these reversals. In Cochabamba, Bolivia, mass protests overturned a privatisation scheme following a 200% tariff hike. In Jakarta, Indonesia, the Supreme Court ruled privatisation unconstitutional, restoring public control (Razavi, 2019; Berge et al., 2023).

Global narratives linking water governance to human rights amplify the momentum of remunicipalization, sustainability, and social justice (Porcher & Saussier, 2017; Rodina, 2018).

 

2.3      Where It is Happening – A Timeline of Reversals

The movement toward remunicipalization has taken root across six continents, reflecting its global resonance. The table below highlights key cases that showcase the rationale and results of this transition:

🔍 Comparative Matrix: Why Public Models Worked

City	Year Privatised	Year Reversed	Reason for Reversal	Outcome of Public Control
Cochabamba	1999	2000	200% tariff hike, protests	Restored affordability, equity
Paris	1985	2010	End of contract, public demand	€35M annual savings, transparency
Berlin	1990s	2013	Secretive contracts, high prices	Improved governance, democratic control
Accra	2000s	2011	Poor performance by PPP	Better service by GWCL
Jakarta	1997	2017	Supreme Court ruling	Legal precedent for public water
Barcelona	2010	Pending	Public lawsuit filed	Rising citizen pressure

These cases illustrate the widespread and multifaceted pushback against privatised water regimes. Legal rulings, public pressure, and financial data all converge to validate remunicipalization as a viable and preferable alternative.

 

2.4      The Ethical Turn in Global Water Governance

As climate change and urbanisation intensify global water stress, the remunicipalization movement aligns with the broader ethical shift in public policy. The reassertion of water as a public good redefines governance not just as administration, but as stewardship rooted in justice and human dignity (Berge et al., 2023).

Thus, remunicipalization represents a significant reclamation of public rights and responsibilities, asserting a new paradigm in how essential services like water are managed and governed globally (Porcher & Saussier, 2017).

 

3         Case Studies in Action: Lessons from Six Cities

 

3.1      Bolivia – Cochabamba’s Water War (2000)

In 1999, Bolivia awarded a water contract to Aguas del Tunari, a consortium led by Bechtel. It triggered a 200% increase in tariffs, sparking mass protests known as the “Water War.” Citizens flooded the streets, and global solidarity movements amplified the cause. By 2000, the government cancelled the contract, reinstating public ownership—a watershed moment in resistance to privatisation (McGoldrick, 2018; Razavi, 2019).

The Cochabamba Water War serves as a pivotal case study in the dynamics of water privatisation and public resistance. It highlights failures in equitable access and showcases the transformative power of grassroots mobilisation (Fabricant & Hicks, 2013). Stakeholder engagement, particularly addressing citizens’ rights, was notably absent—a key factor in the protest’s success (Otto & Böhm, 2006; Loomis, 2013).

Gender dynamics were also central. Laurie (2010) underscores women’s roles in these protests, reflecting the intersection of water rights with broader issues of equity and social justice. The case also sparked international debates on water commodification, igniting activism that emphasised water as a public good (Razavi, 2019).

 

3.2       France – Paris Reclaims Its Flow (2010)

After 25 years under Veolia and Suez, Paris did not renew its contracts, forming Eau de Paris, a publicly owned utility. It yielded €35 million in annual savings, enhanced transparency, and enabled infrastructure reinvestment (Zhang et al., 2021; Martínez et al., 2023).

The decision reflected a governance shift focused on democratic management and social equity. It challenged the myth that privatisation is inherently more efficient. The Eau de Paris model prioritised community engagement and accountability, prompting other cities to reevaluate their governance (Martínez et al., 2023).

 

3.3      Germany – Berlin’s Democratic Turn (2013)

Berlin’s partial privatisation in the 1990s led to rising costs and opaque contracts. A 2011 referendum demanded transparency. By 2013, the city repurchased its water services, restoring democratic ownership (Figueroa et al., 2022; Romanò et al., 2022).

This case illustrates the success of citizen mobilisation in reversing privatisation. It highlights how democratic mechanisms can reclaim public resources and re-centre water governance on transparency, accountability, and public interest.

 

3.4      Ghana – Accra Ends Private Contract (2011)

Ghana terminated its contract with Aqua Vitens Rand Limited in 2011 after the company failed to meet performance targets. Public dissatisfaction and underperformance led to a return to public ownership via Ghana Water Company Limited (GWCL) (Aigbavboa et al., 2023; Harris, 2019).

The case underlines how privatisation often fails to address infrastructure and access needs. Public control restored trust and redirected focus toward service quality and transparency (Hirvi, 2012; Ameyaw & Chan, 2015).

 

3.5      Indonesia – Jakarta’s Judicial Turnaround (2017)

Jakarta’s 1997 privatisation through PAM Lyonnaise Jaya and Aetra led to poor access and secretive agreements. In 2017, the Indonesian Supreme Court ruled the privatisation unconstitutional, restoring public control (Setiadi & Pratiwiningrum, 2020; Oktaviani et al., 2020).

This legal milestone emphasised the role of judicial systems in defending public water rights. The ruling marked a historic moment in reaffirming water as a constitutional right in Indonesia (Colven, 2022).

 

4        Patterns and Principles – Why Reversals Succeed

---

The patterns and principles of remunicipalization highlight critical trends in returning water services from private to public management. This chapter analyses five key themes that have consistently emerged across global remunicipalization efforts: lack of investment, high prices, secrecy, public protest, and legal action.

 

4.1      Lack of Infrastructure Investment

One of the foremost reasons for remunicipalization is the frequent failure of private operators to reinvest in infrastructure, leading to long-term service decay. Deferred maintenance and short-term profit motives contribute to the deterioration of essential water systems (Bel, 2020). In contrast, public ownership has shown greater commitment to long-term investment, as public utilities are typically more aligned with community needs (Romanò et al., 2022). The reversion to public control often highlights the inadequacy of private oversight mechanisms and the unsustainable financial models employed under privatisation (McDonald, 2016).

 

4.2      Tariff Hikes and Economic Exclusion

Privatisation is frequently associated with significant tariff increases, rendering access unaffordable for many citizens (Papenfuß & Aufenacker, 2011). Authorities often justify these hikes as necessary for cost recovery or infrastructure upgrades. However, they disproportionately burden low-income households. In contrast, remunicipalized systems have often succeeded in stabilising or reducing water rates, emphasising equitable access and challenging the commodification of water (Bel, 2020; Figueroa et al., 2022). Public water operators often adjust tariffs based on social equity considerations, reflecting a governance model grounded in public welfare rather than shareholder returns.

 

4.3      Contract Secrecy and Governance Failures

Opaque governance is a hallmark of many privatised water arrangements. Non-disclosure agreements and confidential clauses often prevent public scrutiny, contributing to growing mistrust (Voorn, 2021). Remunicipalization processes frequently restore transparency by implementing public oversight structures and requiring the open disclosure of operational and financial data (Bel, 2020). Such reforms are critical to rebuilding trust, enabling communities to monitor and participate in decisions that affect their access to water services.

 

4.4      Role of Public Protest

Citizen mobilisations have repeatedly proven pivotal in prompting remunicipalization. Protests in cities such as Cochabamba and Berlin exemplify the power of grassroots movements to challenge entrenched private interests and influence political will (Razavi, 2019; DeRidder et al., 2020). Public demonstrations often compel leaders to reevaluate contractual arrangements and prioritise citizens’ rights to essential services. As shown in numerous cases, such activism acts as a catalyst for broader legal and institutional change (Porcher & Saussier, 2017; McDonald, 2016).

 

4.5      Legal Action as a Tool of Justice

Judiciaries have increasingly become active defenders of public water rights. Landmark rulings in countries like Indonesia have reinforced constitutional guarantees, asserting water as a human right and legitimising remunicipalization efforts (Porcher & Saussier, 2017; Marwa, 2019). Courts are playing a growing role in curbing the overreach of privatised models and ensuring that water governance aligns with human dignity and public interest. Legal frameworks thus provide an essential backstop when market mechanisms fail to deliver just and equitable outcomes.

 

These five principles—investment failure, economic exclusion, contract secrecy, public protest, and legal remedy—serve as foundational elements in the growing global trend toward remunicipalization. Together, they reflect a broader shift in the understanding of water governance: from a commodified utility to a shared public trust. As global pressures such as climate change and urbanisation intensify, these patterns offer a roadmap for building more resilient, equitable, and accountable water systems worldwide.

 

5         Innovations After Remunicipalization

5.1      Participatory Governance Models

Participatory governance models have gained traction in various cities, ensuring that civic engagement plays a crucial role in public service accountability. Cities like Naples and Paris implement citizen boards, audits, and participatory budgeting practices that allow residents to influence resource allocation and policy decisions. Such frameworks encourage transparency and foster community trust by involving citizens directly in governance processes (Kitchin et al., 2015; Degbelo et al., 2016). Citizen involvement not only helps to hold public officials accountable but also promotes a better understanding of community needs and preferences, thus aligning government actions with public interests (Kitchin et al., 2016; Kitchin, 2016). The implementation of these models demonstrates a shift toward more democratised governance structures, where citizens are not merely recipients of services but active participants in decision-making (Kitchin, 2016).

 

5.2      Digital Transparency

Digital tools and technologies are reshaping public service transparency through the integration of innovative billing systems, online dashboards, and complaint tracking mechanisms. These innovations foster trust in public utilities by providing real-time data and facilitating user engagement in service delivery. For instance, interactive dashboards can offer citizens insights into service performance metrics, operational efficiency, and expenditure (Kitchin et al., 2015; Whittington & Nauges, 2020). Such digital platforms enable authorities to provide timely information and respond to public inquiries effectively, enhancing accountability (Soundararaj et al., 2022). Furthermore, the evolution of urban dashboards reflects broader innovative city initiatives that prioritise data accessibility and stakeholder engagement, essential for fostering informed decision-making among residents and local governance (Young et al., 2020).

 

5.3      Climate-Resilient Infrastructure

Investments in climate-resilient infrastructure are becoming increasingly vital as public utilities face the challenges of climate change. Cities are moving towards decentralised systems and nature-based solutions that not only mitigate environmental impacts but also enhance community resilience. By adopting sustainable practices, municipalities are recognising the interconnectedness of urban infrastructure and environmental health (Julihi et al., 2019; Contreras-Figueroa et al., 2023). The implementation of such strategies is closely aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGS), reinforcing the commitment to resilience in urban planning and service delivery (Fagundes et al., 2024; Zdraveski et al., 2017). This shift illustrates a growing understanding among public utilities that climate resilience is essential for long-term sustainability and operational effectiveness, which in turn supports community well-being (Nayak et al., 2023).

 

5.4      Financial Equity Reforms

Financial equity reforms in public utilities have emerged as critical measures to ensure that essential services remain affordable, particularly for vulnerable populations. Strategies such as cross-subsidisation and progressive pricing models allow municipalities to balance cost recovery with social equity, enabling access for low-income households while maintaining service quality (Whittington & Nauges, 2020; Beecher, 2020). These reforms are significant in addressing disparities in service access, as they create a more equitable framework that accounts for varying socio-economic contexts (Chen et al., 2021). Additionally, the introduction of extensive affordability analyses informs policy-making, ensuring that public utilities align their pricing structures with the financial realities of the communities they serve, thereby promoting greater inclusivity and social justice in service delivery (Badii et al., 2018).

In summary, the innovations following remunicipalization reflect a comprehensive approach to governance that integrates participatory models, digital transparency, climate resilience, and financial equity. By embracing these frameworks, municipalities can enhance accountability, promote inclusive participation, and adapt to contemporary challenges in urban governance.

 

6        Outcomes of Remunicipalization: What Changed?

Improved Service Delivery Public utilities often outperform their private predecessors in quality, access, and reliability. Enhanced accountability ensures a stronger focus on equitable distribution. It also addresses rising concerns over bottled water consumption, environmental degradation, and the commodification of water.

Cost Savings Cities like Paris and Berlin report significant annual savings post-remunicipalization. Utilities reinvest these funds into infrastructure, staff development, and customer service.. The Paris example, with 35 million euros in yearly savings, demonstrates fiscal prudence under public models.

Democratic Governance Remunicipalized systems frequently establish public boards and participatory mechanisms, fostering local ownership and inclusive decision-making. This model promotes resilience and flexibility in the face of urbanisation and climate change challenges.

Re-legitimisation of the Public Sector. Successful remunicipalization restores public confidence in the government’s ability to deliver essential services, proving that state-run models can be both practical and ethical. It rejects the neoliberal paradigm that equates privatisation with efficiency and places human rights at the centre of water governance.

The outcomes of remunicipalization reflect significant shifts in water governance, leading to improved service delivery, cost savings, enhanced democratic governance, and the re-legitimisation of the public sector. Each of these elements underscores the substantial benefits that can arise when communities regain control over essential water services.

6.1      Improved Service Delivery

Research indicates that public utilities frequently outperform their private predecessors in terms of water quality, access, and reliability. Enhanced accountability within public systems facilitates a stronger focus on equitable distribution (Romanò et al., 2022). The transition towards public management not only addresses issues related to service decay and inefficiencies often linked with privatised operations but also attempts to counter rising concerns over bottled water consumption and environmental degradation (Voorn et al., 2020). For example, cities that have remunicipalized, such as Paris and Berlin, have reported significant improvements in service delivery metrics, providing residents with better access to clean water.

6.2      Cost Savings

Numerous cases of remunicipalization document significant financial savings. For instance, after reverting to public ownership, Paris reported annual savings of 35 million euros and reinvested them into infrastructure improvements and customer service enhancements(Spang et al., 2020). Similarly, Berlin has also experienced financial benefits reported in the literature, although specific figures for Berlin were not substantiated, indicating a trend towards fiscal savings that support ongoing upgrades and staff development within the public utility framework (Albalate et al., 2024). This trend illustrates how remunicipalization can lead to fiscal prudence while maintaining service quality and affordability for citizen

s.

6.3       Democratic Governance

The establishment of public boards and participatory mechanisms is a hallmark of remunicipalized systems, fostering local ownership and inclusive decision-making (Berge et al., 2023). This model strengthens community engagement and resilience amidst the growing pressures of urbanisation and climate change, empowering citizens to influence how their water resources are managed (Nagaraj & Anitha, 2022). By democratising decision-making, public utilities pave the way for governance structures that prioritise local needs while ensuring transparency and accountability.

 

6.4      Re-legitimisation of the Public Sector

Successful remunicipalization has restored public confidence in government capabilities to deliver essential services effectively and ethically. By proving that state-run models can operate efficiently, these transitions challenge the neoliberal paradigm that equates privatisation with efficiency, repositioning human rights at the centre of water governance (Berge et al., 2023). This re-legitimisation process emphasises the importance of prioritising public welfare over corporate profits, fundamentally reshaping how societies view public services.

In summary, the outcomes of remunicipalization are extensive and transformative. Improved service delivery, significant cost savings, enhanced democratic governance, and the re-legitimisation of public services collectively illustrate the multifaceted benefits of transitioning from privatised to public management of water resources. These changes not only enhance community equity but also affirm the principle that access to water is a fundamental human right, deserving of prioritised protection and management.

 

7         A Right Reclaimed, A Future Redesigned

The phenomenon of remunicipalization signifies more than a mere reversal of privatisation; it represents a transformative leap towards a more effective paradigm of governance that prioritises public welfare over profit maximisation. Communities across the globe have successfully reclaimed the management of their water resources, demonstrating that treating water as a public good is not only feasible but imperative in combating growing inequalities, addressing climate stress, and rectifying the shortcomings of privatisation (Neves-Silva et al., 2020).

This reassessment of water governance stems from a recognition of water as a fundamental human right—an idea that has gained traction in various legal frameworks, emphasising that access to water should be universal and equitable (Syafrida & Marbun, 2020; Marco, 2023). The United Nations has underscored this perspective, acknowledging that equitable access to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation is essential to the realisation of all human rights (Cardoso & Wichman, 2022). Furthermore, in light of climate change and environmental degradation, there is an urgent need to redesign public systems to enhance resilience, thereby securing both ecological integrity and social equity in access to clean water (Szwedo, 2021).

Innovative practices rooted in transparency and participatory governance are critical for the future of water management. Mechanisms such as citizen engagement in decision-making processes not only bolster accountability but also foster a sense of communal ownership and responsibility towards water resources (Rajala et al., 2019; Zegeye, 2024). As evidenced in remunicipalized contexts, integrating digital transparency tools, participatory budgeting, and audits can empower local populations to influence water governance directly, ensuring that public services adapt to their evolving needs and priorities (Nababan et al., 2024).

Additionally, financial equity reforms are paramount. Implementing progressive pricing mechanisms and cross-subsidisation can help alleviate the financial burden on vulnerable populations, ensuring that access to water does not depend on the ability to pay but rather is recognised as a fundamental human entitlement (Zdraveski et al., 2017; Syafrida & Marbun, 2020). Such reforms reflect a more profound ethical commitment to equity and sustainability in public service delivery (Neves-Silva et al., 2019; Barnard, 2020).

In conclusion, remunicipalization heralds a potential renaissance for water governance, moving towards systems that genuinely respect and enforce water as a human right. To advance this evolution, stakeholders must embrace innovations in transparency, financial methodologies, and participatory frameworks that honour the intrinsic value of water as a life-sustaining resource. By doing so, communities can reshape the future of water governance into one that is equitable, sustainable, and resilient, thereby reclaiming their rights and ensuring a better tomorrow for all.

 

References

Abubakari, M., Buabeng, T., Ahenkan, A. (2013). Implementing Public Private Partnerships in Africa: The Case of Urban Water Service Delivery in Ghana. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 3(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v3i1.3252

Albalate, D., Bel, G., Gradus, R., Reeves, E. (2021). Re-municipalisation of local public services: incidence, causes and prospects. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 87(3), 419-424. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211006455

Albalate, D., Bel, G., Reeves, E. (2021). Are we there yet? Understanding the implementation of re-municipalisation decisions and their duration. Public Management Review, 24(6), 951-974. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1877795

Albalate, D., Bel, G., GonzálezGómez, F., Hernández-Gutiérrez, J.C., PicazoTadeo, A.J. (2024). Changing prices after the reform of local public services: remunicipalization versus privatisation. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 65(2025-03-01 00:00:00), 2026-01-01 00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11149-024-09472-7

Bel, G. (2020). Public versus private water delivery, remunicipalization and water tariffs. Utilities Policy, 62, 100982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2019.100982

Bustamante, R.G. (2004). The water war: resistance against privatisation of water in Cochabamba, Bolivia. Revista De Gestão De Água Da América Latina, 1(1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.21168/rega.v1n1.p37-46

Danso, E. (2019). Anatomy of the Privatisation of State-Owned Enterprises (SOES) in Ghana: Implications for Policy and Accountability. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 9(4), 181. https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v9i4.15600

Fabricant, N., Hicks, K.L. (2013). Bolivia's Next Water War. Radical History Review, 2013(116), 130-145. https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-1965757

Geagea, D., Kaïka, M., Dell™Angelo, J. (2023). Recommending water: Crossing thresholds under citizen-driven remunicipalisation. Urban Studies, 60(16), 3294-3311. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231169612

Gómez, L.Ã.S. (2009). Cochabamba Water Wars. nan, , 2025-03-01 00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198073.wbierp0360

Heriyanto, D.S.N. (2016). LEGAL CHALLENGES TO IMPROVE AND REFORM THE PRIVATISED WATER SERVICES IN INDONESIA. Public Goods & Governance, 1(1), 2018-11-01 00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.21868/pgng.2016.1.2.

Hines, S. (2021). 5. The Water Is Ours: Water Privatisation and War in Neoliberal Bolivia. Nan, 151-194. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520381650-009

Hines, S. (2023). Cochabamba™s 2000 Water War in Historical Perspective. Nan. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199366439.013.1108

Koumpli, A., Kanakoudis, V. (2022). Privatisation and Remunicipalization of Water Supply: A Global Research. nan, , 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/environsciproc2022021068

Marwa, M. (2019). Changing Water Regime: Remunicipalization in Indonesia under the Global Hegemony of Privatisation. Global South Review, 1(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.22146/globalsouth.33131

McDonald, D.A. (2016). The weight of water: Benchmarking for public water services. Environment and Planning a Economy and Space, 48(11), 2181-2200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518x16654913

McDonald, D.A. (2019). Remunicipalization and the human right to water. Nan, 143-160. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429453571-11

McDonald, D.A. (2018). Remunicipalization: The future of water services?. Geoforum, 91, 47-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.02.027

McDonald, D.A. (2016). The weight of water: Benchmarking for public water services. Environment and Planning a Economy and Space, 48(11), 2181-2200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518x16654913

Ohemeng, F.L.K., Grant, J.K. (2011). Has the Bubble Finally Burst? A Comparative Examination of the Failure of Privatisation of Water Services Delivery in Atlanta (USA) and Hamilton (Canada). Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis Research and Practice, 13(3), 287-306. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2011.565915

Onuzik, N.d.C., Mikael-Silva, T., Modena, C.M., Heller, L. (2024). "Fora Saneouro, a água é do Povo": social representations of residents of Ouro Preto, Brazil, on the privatisation of water and sanitation services. Observatorio De La Economía Latinoamericana, 22(8), e6279. https://doi.org/10.55905/oelv22n8-118

Porcher, S., Saussier, S. (2017). ˜Get what you pay for™: The story underneath remunicipalizations in the water sector. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1), 12843. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2017.12843abstract

Porcher, S., Saussier, S. (2017). ˜Get what you pay for™: The story underneath remunicipalizations in the water sector. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1), 12843. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2017.12843abstract

Porcher, S., Saussier, S. (2017). ˜Get what you pay for™: The story underneath remunicipalizations in the water sector. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1), 12843. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2017.12843abstract

Porcher, S., Saussier, S. (2017). ˜Get what you pay for™: The story underneath remunicipalizations in the water sector. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1), 12843. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2017.12843abstract

Porcher, S., Saussier, S. (2017). ˜Get what you pay for™: The story underneath remunicipalizations in the water sector. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1), 12843. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2017.12843abstract

Razavi, N.S. (2019). ˜Social Control™ and the Politics of Public Participation in Water Remunicipalization, Cochabamba, Bolivia. Water, 11(7), 1455. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11071455

Razavi, N.S. (2019). ˜Social Control™ and the Politics of Public Participation in Water Remunicipalization, Cochabamba, Bolivia. Water, 11(7), 1455. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11071455

Razavi, N.S. (2019). ˜Social Control™ and the Politics of Public Participation in Water Remunicipalization, Cochabamba, Bolivia. Water, 11(7), 1455. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11071455

Romanò, G., Guerrini, A., Vernizzi, S. (2013). Ownership, Investment Policies and Funding Choices of Italian Water Utilities: An Empirical Analysis. Water Resources Management, 27(9), 3409-3419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-013-0354-8

Schiel, R., Langford, M., Wilson, B.M. (2020). Does it Matter: Constitutionalisation, Democratic Governance, and the Human Right to Water. Water, 12(2), 350. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020350

Setiadi, W., Pratiwiningrum, A.Z. (2020). A Remunicipalization Idea on Water Management in DKI Jakarta Province. Jurnal Dinamika Hukum, 19(3), 630. https://doi.org/10.20884/1.jdh.2019.19.3.2657

Silver, J. (2023). Infrastructuring Urban Futures. Nan,. https://doi.org/10.47674/9781529225648

Tuslian, W.N., Rinwigati, P., Sandyawan, S. (2024). In Pursuit of Water Justice in Jakarta. The Indonesian Journal of Socio-Legal Studies, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.54828/ijsls.2024v3n2.3

Valdovinos, J. (2012). The remunicipalization of Parisian water services: new challenges for local authorities and policy implications. Water International, 37(2), 107-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2012.662733

 

THE PRICE OF A BROKEN PROMISE: WHY PRIVATISED WATER FAILS FINANCE, CLIMATE, AND PUBLIC TRUST

 

                                                                Author : AM Tris Hardyanto

1        Urban Water at a Crossroads: Climate Resilience, Privatisation Failures, and the Ethics of Equity

 

1.1       The Broken Promise of Privatised Efficiency

Introduction to the Crisis, The intricacies of urban water management and the implications of privatisation are significant in the context of today's rapidly changing climate. As cities grapple with privatised water services, they encounter interconnected challenges: financial systems prioritising short-term profits over sustainable investments, infrastructure inadequately prepared for climate impacts, and a decline in public trust. Multidimensional crisis captures the disappointment of communities that hoped privatisation would enhance water services, only to face deteriorating infrastructure and rising costs.

Unfulfilled Promises of Privatisation was initially seen as a solution to inefficiencies in public water services, promising innovation and efficiency through competition and investment. However, research indicates that the promise often remains unfulfilled. Studies have shown that privatised water utilities frequently prioritise profit-driven motives, leading to underinvestment in essential infrastructure, which is crucial for climate adaptation (Crosson, 2018; Sperling & Ramaswami, 2017). The focus on financial performance can neglect community engagement and public accountability, which are vital for fostering trust (Antunes & Martins, 2020).

 

1.2       Climate Change as a Stress Test for Urban Water

Climate Pressures on Water Infrastructure. The ongoing water crisis, intensified by climate change, is characterised by shifts in precipitation and an increased frequency of extreme weather events. Studies indicate that climate change has reduced global water resources by approximately 20% since 1900, with potential further declines of 10-40% in various regions (Hrdalo et al., 2015). Such changes challenge urban infrastructures that are often not designed to handle climate fluctuations, exacerbating issues like flooding and drought that particularly impact economically disadvantaged areas reliant on privatised systems (Pooroe & Prabaharyaka, 2012; Chen et al., 2022). 

Privatisation and Urban Inequality Moreover, privatisation tends to exacerbate inequalities within urban populations. Research highlights that vulnerable communities are disproportionately affected by climate-related hazards due to limited access to resources and infrastructure (Neto et al., 2014). The focus on profit maximisation in privatised water utilities tends to marginalise these populations, creating ethical dilemmas about access to essential public goods like water. Disparities in access can erode trust in governance systems, undermining collaborative engagement in resource management (Kurniawan et al., 2024; Ramyar, 2017).

Financial Imperatives vs. Resilience Needs: The relationship between privatisation and climate change reveals a significant tension between short-term financial gains and long-term sustainable practices. Private water companies may delay necessary capital improvements to maintain dividends, increasing urban infrastructure vulnerabilities (Leo et al., 2015). Without adequate investments in resilience, communities face elevated risks, including water shortages and health crises due to inadequate sanitation and flooding (Chen et al., 2023).

 

1.3      Rebuilding Public Trust and Sustainable Governance

A Call for Green and Adaptive Infrastructure. Growing public concern over privatised water system failures calls for a reevaluation of governance models and strategies. Effective urban water management must embrace sustainable stewardship and prioritise investments, reinforcing resilience to climate challenges. Integrating green infrastructure represents a promising approach that enhances biodiversity while improving stormwater management in urban areas (Robin, 2021; Zhong et al., 2025).

Community Engagement and Participatory Design. Community engagement and public input are critical for designing effective water management systems. Citizen involvement supports equitable policymaking that addresses local needs and ecological contexts, restoring trust in governance structures. Evidence suggests that participatory approaches can bolster system robustness and community ties, fostering essential collaboration for climate resilience (Willuweit et al., 2015; Munkhsuld et al., 2020).

 

1.4       Ethical Futures in Urban Water Governance

Integrating Finance, Ethics, and Sustainability, the intersections of finance, ethics, and climate resilience necessitate a multifaceted approach to the challenges surrounding privatised water systems. Solutions increasingly rely on aligning responsible governance with innovative engineering that prioritises sustainability and social equity. Recognising these failures and recalibrating urban water frameworks may help mitigate the effects of financial mismanagement and climate vulnerabilities while future-proofing infrastructures (Sitzenfrei et al., 2020; Gold et al., 2022).

Toward Equitable Water Futures, the narrative regarding privatised water systems underscores a broader ethical crisis—a failure to fulfil expectations. The promises of innovation and efficiency have been overshadowed by economic collapse, insufficient climate preparedness, and a substantial erosion of public trust. Developing equitable and sustainable management structures is essential for navigating the complexities of urban water resource management amid climate pressures.

Below are 10 of the largest pure water-sector privatization or take-private transactions from May 2020 through May 2025:

                                             table : privatization or take-private transactions
 

2        The Business of Water: A Fragile Financial Model

The fragility of the financial model used in privatised water services has become increasingly evident as communities across the globe experience the repercussions of privatisation. Model, characterised by tariff increases, debt-related challenges, and profit extraction, often lacks the sustainability necessary to ensure access to clean water for low-income populations. Rather than delivering improvements and maintaining infrastructure, privatised water utilities have frequently prioritised financial returns for investors at the direct expense of necessary reinvestments into service quality.

2.1      Tariff Hikes and Profit Extraction

The immediate response of many private companies to recoup their investments often involves increasing tariffs. Governments and private operators frame these actions as essential for service improvements. However, empirical evidence illustrates that these tariff hikes frequently outpace actual performance improvements, placing undue financial strain on low-income households while failing to deliver meaningful upgrades to the infrastructure (Ahlers & Merme, 2016). For instance, studies indicate that areas like Buenos Aires and Manila have faced significant increases in water charges without corresponding improvements in service consistency or infrastructure quality (Chan et al., 2015). The fundamental issue here lies in the profit-driven nature of privatisation—essentially focusing on short-term gains while neglecting fundamental service delivery needs (Ahlers & Merme, 2016).

The impact on vulnerable populations starkly illustrates the dilemma posed by these tariff hikes. When private companies seek to increase profits through tariff hikes justified as necessary for maintenance and expansion, they often exacerbate existing inequalities. Research reveals that these financial pressures can lead poorer households to reduce their consumption of essential services, ultimately undermining public health and well-being in affected communities (Nwokediegwu et al., 2024). The trend indicates that the initial promises of privatisation often transform into deeper systemic issues, reinforcing socio-economic disparities.

 

2.2      Debt-Loading and Leveraged Buyouts

Many privatisation schemes, particularly in the water sector, rely on complex financial structures laden with high levels of debt. Entities like Macquarie Group and others utilise leveraged buyouts to finance these privatisations, often leaving public utilities without the necessary financial flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances. Reliance on debt causes vulnerabilities that can lead to increased fees for users when private operators seek to manage their financial obligations (Loftus et al., 2018). Studies reveal that these practices not only place an immense burden on ratepayers but also heighten the risk of service disruption and infrastructure neglect (Ruiters & Matji, 2016).

The consequence of leveraging debt to finance private water operations commonly results in cost-cutting measures that further deteriorate service quality. Consequently, communities may find themselves experiencing increased service outages and heightened complaints as maintenance needs are sidelined in favour of repaying financial investors (Loftus et al., 2018). Hence, structural financial analyses point to serious weaknesses in the privatisation model for water services.

 

2.3      Profit Over Reinvestment

The overarching narrative surrounding the privatisation of water services highlights a troubling divergence between public need and private profit motives. Investment shortfalls in vital infrastructure are a recurring issue; funds that should be allocated for maintenance, repairs, and system upgrades frequently get diverted to shareholder dividends and executive bonuses (Ruiters & Amadi-Echendu, 2022). For example, the case of Thames Water showcases a dramatic discrepancy wherein profits distributed to shareholders far exceeded the amounts reinvested into maintaining or improving the water system infrastructure, echoing similar patterns seen in Manila and Buenos Aires (Chan et al., 2015).

 Structural neglect poses serious long-term risks. With inadequate reinvestment, water infrastructure begins to degrade, hampering the system's ability to cope with growing demand or weather-related challenges. Research demonstrates that as water systems age without appropriate investment, they become increasingly vulnerable to failures that lead not only to service disruptions but also to public health crises arising from compromised water quality (Mundonde & Makoni, 2024). The misalignment between profit-driven short-term financial thinking and the long-term sustainability of water services underscores a critical flaw in the privatisation approach.

 

2.4      Early Warning Signs

An alarming trend emerges from the widening gap between profits and necessary investment in infrastructure:  disjunction often serves as an early warning sign of systemic failure within privatised water utilities (Ruiters & Matji, 2016). As maintenance lags behind operational needs and customer complaints escalate, it becomes clear that the focus on shareholder returns undermines the fundamental ethos of providing reliable public services (Hong, 2020). In many cases, utilities find themselves in a precarious cycle where declining service quality further rationalises increased tariffs, driving the model toward unsustainable practices that ultimately threaten public trust in these essential services (McCallum & Viviers, 2020).

Notably, recent analyses across multiple global contexts indicate that recognising these early indicators can be vital for reframing the dialogue around privatised water services. There is a growing consensus that the prioritisation of profits over community needs is detrimental, further emphasising the need for comprehensive reforms that align the interests of private operators with public welfare (Maluleke et al., 2023). Understanding the emergent signs of systemic failure is crucial for both stakeholders and policymakers as they navigate the complexities inherent in water infrastructure management.

 

The analysis of privatised water services encapsulates a myriad of challenges anchored in financial fragility. From tariff hikes to high debt loads, the tendency to prioritise profit extraction over necessary reinvestment leads to a divergence of public and private interests that ultimately erodes service quality and public trust. As privatisation gains momentum globally, it is increasingly imperative for communities and governments to reassess these financial models, focusing on sustainable practices that deliver equitable access to a fundamental human right: clean water.

 

3        Thames Water (UK): A Pipeline of Debt

 

The case of Thames Water in the United Kingdom exemplifies significant issues arising from the privatisation of essential water services, where financial mismanagement and unsustainable practices have led to escalating debt, operational failures, and declining public trust. The situation not only undermines the initial goals of privatisation but also imposes financial burdens on taxpayers and communities.

 

3.1      Thames Water: From Profit to Panic

Initially considered a model of privatisation success, Thames Water's financial trajectory deteriorated starting in 2013. The company reported moderate profits, but by 2017, its financial model began to show signs of unsustainability as its debts exceeded revenues, indicating potential operational crises (Ohemeng & Grant, 2011; Loftus et al., 2018). Financial strain culminated in 2021 when credit rating agencies issued warnings about Thames Water's long-term viability, reflecting deep concerns regarding managerial effectiveness and infrastructure investment (Souza et al., 2024). By 2023, the UK government provided a bailout, indicating that privatisation had shifted financial responsibility back to the public sector, contradicting the original rationale intended to alleviate taxpayer burdens (Souza et al., 2024; Ohemeng & Grant, 2011).

Thames Water's case illustrates the risks that can arise from prioritising financial metrics over essential service delivery. When companies prioritise profits, they often allow operational inefficiencies to proliferate, ultimately threatening service quality and reliability. The inadequate maintenance of infrastructure in favour of profit extraction intensifies the risk of systemic failures, demonstrating how the promise of privatisation can devolve into a cautionary tale of mismanaged public resources (Loftus et al., 2018; Souza et al., 2024). Instead of fostering public trust, these conditions contribute to an erosion of confidence among consumers reliant on these critical services (Adams & Halvorsen, 2014).

 

3.2      Acquisition and Financial Engineering

The acquisition of Thames Water by Macquarie in 2006 marked a pivotal moment in the company's financial strategy. Following the acquisition, Macquarie reportedly extracted over £1.6 billion in dividends, which intensified the financialisation of the utility (Neves-Silva et al., 2023). Focus on short-term financial gain overshadowed necessary investments in infrastructure improvements and the provision of reliable services. Financial restructuring became a priority, characterised by heavy debt accumulation while essential service maintenance dwindled (Dusetzina et al., 2012).

Assessing the broader context of water privatisation reveals that aggressive financialisation can compromise the essential services that communities depend on. In Thames Water's case, the connection between shareholder profits and operational sustainability became tenuous; while investor returns surged, residents faced increased tariffs and a decline in service quality (Adams & Halvorsen, 2014). trend aligns with broader critiques of privatisation, where the maximisation of shareholder value often overshadows public good, adversely impacting service provision (Ameyaw et al., 2017; John et al., 2014).

 

3.3      Debt Crisis and Public Backlash

A critical indicator of financial mismanagement within Thames Water was the company's debt, which ballooned to £19 billion by 2023. Excessive debt load invites regulatory scrutiny and fines for pollution violations, further alienating the company from public trust (Yadav & Kumar, 2015). The growing opacity of its financial practices undermined public confidence, leading to discussions around the necessity of renationalisation to prevent systemic collapse (Dadon et al., 2024). reflects a global trend in privatisation where increasing financial burdens erode the perceived benefits of private management structures.

Public backlash became increasingly evident as residents confronted not only rising costs but also deteriorating service quality. Many began questioning the rationale behind privatising essential utilities when the risks often translate to escalating expenses and reduced public accountability. Thames Water's experience underscores the importance of government intervention, not only to sustain infrastructure but also as a corrective measure to protect public interests (Volzke et al., 2021; Telfah et al., 2017).

 

3.4      Lessons from the UK Experience

The experiences of Thames Water provide critical lessons regarding the relationship between financialisation, privatisation, and public service management. A key takeaway is the harmful impact of weak regulatory frameworks that fail to hold private utilities accountable (Ferguson, 2024). As demonstrated in Thames Water's trajectory, prioritising shareholder returns without stringent oversight can lead to systemic vulnerabilities that jeopardise public resources.

Additionally, the case highlights the essential need for robust regulatory measures to mitigate aggressive financial management practices often seen in privatised utilities. There needs to be a renewed focus on sustainable service delivery that aligns public needs with responsible financial practices (Bel et al., 2015; Fontanazza et al., 2013). Ultimately, the Thames Water scenario illustrates that emphasising dividend returns over community needs erodes trust in governance and service providers, undermining the foundational ethics inherent to public utilities.

In conclusion, Thames Water serves as a stark reminder of the inherent risks associated with the privatisation of essential resources. The shift from initial profitability to eventual crisis signifies a misalignment of incentives that favours short-term financial engineering while jeopardising public investment and service quality. The lessons drawn from the situation advocate for reevaluating the privatisation paradigm, pushing towards more sustainable, community-oriented management of crucial services.

 

4        Argentina's Aguas Argentinas: Crisis and Collapse

The story of Argentina's Aguas Argentinas emphasises the critical interrelation between climate risk and the impact of privatisation on water supply systems. The case highlights how privatised entities can falter under climate stresses, illustrating a broader trend where the business model itself fails to accommodate the unpredictable consequences of environmental change.

 

4.1      Climate Risk and the Privatisation Collapse

In Argentina, the privatisation of water systems has often occurred under conditions of significant climate vulnerability, underscored by events such as prolonged droughts. The collapse of Aguas Argentinas serves as a case study demonstrating the inadequacy of privatised models to withstand climate stress; the lack of strategic investments in adaptive capacity led directly to a water crisis amid changing climatic conditions (Körner, 2015; Barros et al., 2014). Privatisation may initially promise gains in efficiency and performance, but the structural limitations become apparent when faced with environmental shocks. Research indicates that such privatised models typically operate on tight profit margins, limiting their ability to address long-term infrastructure maintenance or climate resilience (Dagdeviren, 2011; Fuente & Meruane, 2017).

Notably, Aguas Argentinas' collapse mirrored the experiences of water systems in other climates stressed by privatisation, where inadequate investments under private management resulted in detrimental impacts on water access (Körner, 2015). The broader implications reveal a systemic failure attributed to prioritising short-term financial efficiencies over sustainable service delivery models that can anticipate and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Thus, the structural limitations of these privatised water systems in Argentina are not isolated incidents; they reflect fundamental flaws in the operational logic underlying many privatised models globally (Villalba et al., 1998; Akchurin, 2022).

 

4.2      Privatisation under Global Pressure

Global financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), significantly influenced Argentina's experience with water privatisation through external pressure. In the 1990s, these organisations advocated for privatisation as part of broader economic reforms meant to foster efficiency (Villalba et al., 1998; Körner, 2015). Multinational consortia led by companies like Suez entered the market with promises of improved efficiency and investment. However, they faced considerable challenges rooted in the country's political volatility and structural inequalities, complicating the implementation of these privatised structures (Akchurin, 2022; Dagdeviren, 2011).

The outcomes of such imposed reforms reflect a critical lesson: privatisation under global financial mandates does not necessarily equate to improved services or reliability, particularly in environments marked by high socio-economic disparities and frequent political changes. Critics argue that these reforms often benefited foreign companies more than the local populations. They aimed to serve the communities, resulting in infrastructure that failed to meet the needs of all residents (Dagdeviren, 2011). Thus, while external funding helped operationalise these water systems, the complexities of Argentinian society, marked by inequalities, were insufficiently addressed, ultimately exacerbating service delivery challenges in the face of climate stress.

 

4.3      Economic Crisis and Service Failure

The economic turmoil that struck Argentina in 2001 catalysed a deep financial crisis that significantly impacted the water sector. Inflation surged, and a government decree freezing tariffs meant that Aguas Argentinas could not adjust prices during economic upheaval, causing their revenue model to collapse completely (Körner, 2015; Fuente & Meruane, 2017). The inability to generate necessary income led to a decline in service quality and infrastructure, which was already deteriorating due to earlier underinvestment and mismanagement (Lyon et al., 2017; Barros et al., 2014).

As tariffs remained stagnant amidst soaring inflation, the repercussions were felt acutely by consumers, and tensions between the government and the private operator intensified. The resulting decline in service quality eroded public trust and highlighted the fragility of a system that prioritised profit generation over the essential facet of sustainability—a principle that should underlie the provision of public goods such as water (Ahumada & Cornejo, 2021). The dismantling of effective oversight and accountability mechanisms further aggravated the situation, leaving the water systems fundamentally compromised and vulnerable to operational failures that had widespread social implications (Körner, 2015; Barros et al., 2014).

 

4.4      Renationalisation and Recovery

By 2006, the failure of Aguas Argentinas prompted the Argentine government to take decisive action, leading to a renationalisation of the water supply system and the establishment of Aysa (Aguas y Saneamientos Argentinos) to restore public control (Akchurin, 2022; Lobina, 2016). Transition marked a critical shift from privatised management back to public stewardship, reflecting the recognition that essential services like water should fundamentally serve public interests rather than prioritise private profit. The decision to terminate the privatisation contract signified a rejection of externally imposed models that failed to deliver the promised efficiencies or service improvements.

The move back to public management has allowed for greater emphasis on local accountability and community engagement, which are essential for rebuilding trust among residents and ensuring that water management is conducted equitably (Akchurin, 2022). The success of Aysa illustrates how empowering local management can lead to improved outcomes for water services, particularly when balanced against the pressures exerted by global financial mandates and climate challenges.

Ultimately, the case of Aguas Argentinas encapsulates multiple lessons learned from the pitfalls of privatisation, especially under the intense pressures of economic crisis and climate change. The ongoing need for adaptive strategies tailored to the unique socio-political contexts of countries like Argentina underscores how critical it is to reassess the frameworks within which Governments or institutions manage public goods within these systems. As Argentina continues to navigate its water management complexities post-renationalisation, the fundamental challenge lies in balancing economic realities with the need for resilient and sustainable public service delivery.

 

The experiences of Aguas Argentinas reinforce the notion that privatisation, particularly in contexts of economic volatility and climate vulnerability, can lead to detrimental outcomes for essential services. As countries reassess their models for managing water and other public goods, crucial lessons from Argentina's historical trajectory present a compelling case for prioritising sustainability, local accountability, and robust public oversight in water governance frameworks.

 

5        The Manila Model: A Cautionary Success?

The case of Manila's water privatisation provides valuable insights and critical lessons about the complexities involved in transitioning public services to private management. Initially seen as a success story, the privatisation implemented in 1997 by the Manila Water Corporation has undergone significant scrutiny over the years, highlighting both its early achievements and underlying challenges that reveal the limits of market-driven water provision.

 

5.1      Early Wins: Expansion and Efficiency

The privatisation of Manila's water services initially yielded significant improvements in service delivery, with indicators such as reduced non-revenue water rates, expanded access to previously underserved areas, and enhanced billing and customer service systems (Rivera, 2011). These advancements positioned Manila Water as a model of effective privatisation, illustrating how a private operator could enhance operational efficiencies and increase service coverage (Baffrey & Adis, 2012). Prior to privatisation, the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) faced substantial challenges, including high leakage rates and limited service availability (Rivera, 2011). The contrast following privatisation underscores how well-structured public-private partnerships can, at least initially, lead to improved performance outcomes.

Moreover, "Manila Water designed its operational model to attract investment and improve infrastructure, signifying a potential paradigm shift in urban water provision (Molinos‐Senante & Sala‐Garrido, 2016). The early phase imbued stakeholders with a sense of optimism, with the company even becoming a case study in international development circles on how privatisation could address infrastructural inefficiencies in developing countries (Molinos‐Senante & Sala‐Garrido, 2016; Tadem, 2020).

 

5.2      The Tipping Point: Affordability and Accountability

However, beneath the surface of initial successes lay significant challenges that emerged over time. The company realised operational efficiencies, and the substantial tariff hikes imposed by Manila Water began to strain household budgets, particularly for low-income communities already facing economic pressures (Torio et al., 2021). Furthermore, legal disputes surfaced as public dissatisfaction grew, culminating in government intervention to renegotiate contracts in 2021. sequence of events highlighted a critical limitation of the purely market-driven model adopted by the privatised entity—namely, the failure to balance financial sustainability with public accountability (Tadem, 2020; Tan, 2013).

As consumer expectations evolved and dissatisfaction mounted, the shortcomings of a system focused predominantly on profit became more evident, prompting discussions about the necessity for stronger regulatory oversight (Anwandter & Ozuna, 2002). The tipping point, characterised by a public backlash against rising costs and perceived declines in service quality, showcased the vulnerabilities inherent in privatised models lacking robust accountability frameworks (Tan, 2013). Thus, the example of Manila serves as a cautionary tale regarding the risks of commercialisation without sufficient regulatory controls in place to protect vulnerable populations.

5.3      A Mixed Verdict

The trajectory of Manila's water privatisation yields a mixed verdict on the efficacy of such initiatives. While the initial outcomes demonstrate that privatisation can indeed deliver tangible improvements, the long-term success of these systems hinges on the establishment of clear governance structures that ensure public accountability (Tadem, 2020; Leong & Wu, 2014). As experiences from Manila reveal, it is essential to implement oversight mechanisms that effectively balance the interests of private operators with the well-being of the communities they serve. Failure to achieve balance may result in outcomes that benefit corporate stakeholders at the expense of essential service reliability and affordability.

 Complex interplay demonstrates that privatisation, grounded in neoliberal assumptions, can fall short of its intended goals unless accompanied by frameworks that prioritise both operational efficiency and equity in service delivery (Tuerk et al., 2005; Shatkin, 2008). Stakeholders in urban water management must scrutinise the effectiveness of arrangements that lack adequate accountability, advocating for regulatory reforms that reinforce consumer protections and promote equitable access to water.

 

 Manila's journey through water privatisation encapsulates the challenges of transitioning public services into a privatised framework. The initial successes of expanded access and increased efficiency stand in stark contrast to the later challenges of affordability and accountability, illustrating that Governments and regulators must carefully manage such frameworks to avoid associated pitfalls with corporate capture. Moving forward, lessons learned from Manila will be essential for guiding future efforts at improving water management, advocating for a balanced approach that emphasises both corporate accountability and public welfare as central components in the provision of essential services.

6         Broken Promises Across Borders

The exploration of broken promises across diverse international water privatisation initiatives reveals significant patterns regarding service delivery, governance, and the role of climate change impacts in altering operational viability. The experiences from Ghana, Jakarta, and Niger illustrate that privatisation has often led to performance failures and public dissatisfaction, underpinning the necessity for stringent regulatory frameworks and a focus on public accountability.

 

6.1      Ghana: Performance Failure in Accra

In Ghana, the case of Aqua Vitens Rand (AVR) starkly illustrates the failure of a privatised model to deliver essential water services. Terminated in 2011 due to inadequate performance metrics, AVR's contraction ended not because of inherent technical limitations or a lack of expertise but due to systemic failures exacerbated by weak regulation and poor execution. Despite the initial expectations that privatisation would enhance service delivery in Accra, the reality revealed stagnation and a failure to meet service goals, including coverage and water quality.

The inability of Aqua Vitens Rand to effectively address the needs of the community exposes a critical vulnerability within privatised water systems that rely heavily on technical implementation without adequate regulatory oversight. Situation contends that merely transferring management to private companies does not inherently guarantee improvements in public services, particularly when institutional frameworks lack the strength to enforce compliance and monitor performance. Thus, Ghana's experience reaffirms the necessity of integrating robust oversight mechanisms when implementing public-private partnerships in the water sector.

 

6.2      Jakarta: Legal Reversal of Privatisation

The privatisation of water services in Jakarta faced significant challenges, resulting in its eventual reversal by the Indonesian Constitutional Court in 2017. The ruling illustrated the critical importance of upholding legal clarity and public consultation within public-private partnership contracts. The public backlash against the privatised water services in Jakarta was prompted by the perception of unavailability and rising costs, leading citizens to demand accountability and transparency.

The legal ruling against privatisation demonstrates the vital role that civic engagement and judicial oversight can play in protecting public interests from corporate priorities that may not align with community needs. As the government sought to restore public control, the case illustrated broader trends in which privatised water systems faced scrutiny due to inadequate service delivery, emphasising the necessity for contracts that emphasise public engagement and clear governance frameworks.

 

6.3      Niger: Strategic Nationalization

In 2024, the Nigerien government ended Veolia's contract, citing concerns about sovereignty and affordability in water provision. The incident underscores a global shift towards reclaiming public control over essential services as governments increasingly recognise the inadequacies of privatised arrangements to serve the needs of their populations. Similar to the experiences in Ghana and Jakarta, Niger's nationalisation is a response to a system often viewed as prioritising profits over public welfare.

The strategic move to terminate the contract with Veolia marks a significant acknowledgement of the failures associated with outsourcing water management to private entities that fail to account for local sensitivities and needs. By taking approach, Niger demonstrates a crucial trend toward reasserting state authority in critical sectors, which many argue shapes a necessary pathway for ensuring equitable access to vital resources like water.

 

6.4      Ignoring the Rising Waters

In addition to institutional and governance challenges, privatised water systems exhibit negligence regarding climate risks exacerbated by climate change. The operational models employed in these systems frequently overlook the increasing frequency of flooding, poor infrastructure adaptation, and outdated drainage systems, exposing communities to contamination and service disruptions.

The failure to account for climate impacts reflects a broader pattern observed across privatised systems, where financial priorities tend to overshadow long-term sustainability considerations. Oversight has consequences for the resilience of urban water infrastructure, rendering communities vulnerable to service breakdowns during extreme weather events. The unmitigated crisis facing water management systems in a warming world suggests that privatisation, in its current form, is unstable and unsustainable given the accelerating impacts of climate change.

Conclusion

The narratives surrounding privatised water systems reveal persistent issues stemming from a lack of accountability, governance, and planning for climate impacts. The experiences of Ghana, Jakarta, and Niger highlight contrasting pathways toward re-engagement with public control in the face of privatisation's shortcomings. Collectively, these instances signify an urgent need for developing frameworks that ensure public interests are central to water management practices, emphasising sustainability, community engagement, and accountability as vital components of effective governance in the face of escalating global challenges.

 

7        Root Causes of Financial Failure

The financial failures associated with a complex interplay of moral, political, and economic forces have shaped privatised water systems, as well as institutional and economic factors. Understanding these failures requires an examination of the various root causes leading to inadequate service delivery and increased inequality in water access across multiple regions, particularly in the Global South.

 

7.1      A Moral Failure in the Global South

The privatisation of water services in many parts of the Global South raises profound ethical concerns that go beyond mere economics. Advocates for water justice argue that these privatisation efforts represent a moral failure with severe implications for the most vulnerable populations (Souza et al., 2024). In Buenos Aires, for instance, rising water bills against limited access to safe drinking water highlight the contradictions inherent in profit-driven water management. Similarly, in Manila, community organisations protested the commodification of water, asserting that we must recognise access to essential resources like water as a fundamental human right, rather than a market commodity (Correa et al., 2020). These narratives reflect an ethical crisis at the heart of privatisation, whereby the prioritisation of profit results in impoverished service for those who can least afford it.

The moral implications extend further when considering that privatisation often exacerbates existing inequalities. Research indicates that marginalised communities struggle to influence service provision policies, resulting in disproportionate burdens placed on them as costs rise and service quality declines (Imaz-Lamadrid et al., 2023). These experiences foster a growing recognition that financialised water systems can deepen social divides, fundamentally contradicting the principles of equity and justice that should govern access to essential resources (Figueroa et al., 2022).

 

7.2      Misjudged Returns and Unrealistic Assumptions

Another core issue contributing to the financial failures of privatised water systems is the unrealistic financial assumptions underpinning privatisation agreements. Operators often overestimate potential profitability while underestimating ongoing maintenance costs, creating a disconnect between expected and actual returns (Auriol & Blanc, 2009). Misjudgment leads to inflated financial projections, which can entrap both private operators and public entities in cycles of debt and insolvency.

The failure to account for necessary maintenance often results in infrastructure deterioration, burdening government bodies and taxpayers with costs for repairs that should have been anticipated and funded by private operators ("The Right of Thirst: Water as a Human Right and as a Commons", 2018). Analyses reveal that poor initial assessments about profitability can lead to long-term financial instability, rendering investments in privatised water systems precarious and unsustainable (Gibson & Pieper, 2017).

 

7.3      Weak Institutional Oversight

 

Weak institutional oversight significantly hampers the effectiveness of privatised water services. Governments frequently lack the legal, financial, or technical capacity to regulate multinational operators adequately, resulting in power imbalances that skew contracts heavily in favour of profit at the expense of public welfare (Correa et al., 2020). In many instances, regulatory authorities are under-resourced and poorly equipped to enforce compliance, allowing privatised utilities to operate with limited accountability (Morin et al., 2015).

Moreover, without rigorous oversight, regulated entities can become complacent about service delivery, leading to poor performance and reduced investments in infrastructure. Case studies from various countries illustrate that effective regulatory frameworks are crucial for ensuring that decision-makers prioritise public interests to ensure equitable and accountable water management. However, many privatised utilities function with insufficient regulatory scrutiny, ultimately undermining their performance (Schularick, 2014).

 

7.4      Profit Incentives vs. Public Mandates

Private interests and public mandates frequently clash in water management. The profit motives of private operators conflict with the public good mandate. We should treat water as a fundamental human right, not as a commodity for profit. Consequently, the push for growth, efficiency, and profitability often neglects the broader societal implications of water access and quality (Malecki et al., 2017). Misalignment creates systemic vulnerabilities, as privatisation models designed to ensure efficiency can fall short of meeting public needs.

The emphasis on profitability often results in rising tariffs, service cutbacks, and barriers to access for marginalised communities (Asenova et al., 2007). Experiences from various regions show that when the public sector fails to assert its mandate effectively, the consequences are generally borne by the most vulnerable, further entrenching social inequalities (Greiner, 2016).

 

7.5      Who Bears the Risk?

One of the stark contradictions in the privatisation of water services is the misalignment of risk and reward. Private models frequently socialise the risks associated with water delivery (e.g., through higher tariffs or taxpayer bailouts) while privatising the financial rewards (profits and dividends) (Doniec et al., 2022). creates an environment where the public bears the financial burdens of risk while private companies reap the advantages, leading to systemic inequities and long-term injustice (Grygolec et al., 2012).

 Pattern is particularly evident in cases of operational failures or environmental stresses, where the costs of rectifying such situations are often pushed onto consumers or public funds, while profits are protected within private entities (Murphy et al., 2015). The fundamental injustice embedded in the arrangement underscores the necessity for public entities to reclaim control over water resources, ensuring that both risks and rewards align with public interest and community welfare.

 

The root causes of financial failures in privatised water systems illuminate a multifaceted crisis involving moral, institutional, and economic dimensions. As evidenced in locations like Buenos Aires, Manila, and beyond, the underlying challenges connected to overestimating returns, lack of regulatory oversight, and misaligned incentives highlight how privatisation can compound existing inequalities and deepen service inadequacies. Recognising these failures emphasises the urgent need for rethinking water governance strategies to prioritise public access, accountability, and sustainability in the face of increasingly challenging global conditions.

 

8        The Bigger Picture: What Acquisitions Really Mean

We must critically examine the broader implications of privatisation in water management systems, given the numerous challenges communities face worldwide. Meanwhile, private firms often portray water acquisitions as solutions to fiscal and infrastructural constraints. The underlying reality frequently includes significant new risks, including hidden debt, underinvestment, and insufficient preparedness for climate-related disasters. The theme leads us to consider the urgent need to reclaim public water to ensure sustainable and equitable access to the fundamental human right.

The privatisation narrative tends to emphasise immediate financial relief and promises of efficiency, yet the reality reveals a much more complicated picture. Private operators often extract profits that far exceed their reinvestments in necessary infrastructure improvements. For instance, the experience in Buenos Aires and Manila illustrates how rising profits correlate with inadequate infrastructure maintenance (Souza et al., 2024; Correa et al., 2020). Such conditions become particularly evident during extreme climate events, when failing to prepare or upgrade systems can lead to catastrophic consequences for communities reliant on privatised water systems. For instance, Thames Water's model failed to incorporate resilience planning, exposing urban populations to severe risks during floods and droughts, potentially leading to disastrous public health outcomes and infrastructure collapse (Imaz-Lamadrid et al., 2023; Figueroa et al., 2022).

Moreover, the burden of mismanagement often falls disproportionately on the public, as rising costs and performance failures lead to calls for government intervention and bailouts. Consumers and taxpayers are left to shoulder the financial burdens resulting from privatisation failures, further highlighting the ethical and financial implications of the privatisation approach. As the risks become apparent, policymakers must reevaluate the assumptions guiding water privatisation and consider more resilient and equitable models of governance.

 

8.1      A Call for Reclaiming Public Water

The overarching failures of water privatisation extend across various dimensions, including economic efficiency, climate resilience, and moral obligations to ensure equitable access to water. The repeated inability of privatised systems to deliver on these fronts raises essential questions about the prevailing logic of acquisition. A growing consensus among water justice advocates emphasises that water must be regarded as a shared resource rather than a tradable commodity, aligning access with the intrinsic human right to safe water (Auriol & Blanc, 2009; "The Right of Thirst: Water as a Human Right and as a Commons", 2018).

In an age marked by climate disruption, governments must rethink their approaches to water management. Rather than transferring public assets into private hands, strategies should focus on reinvesting in public water systems to bolster climate resilience and emphasise equity over profit extraction. Successful models of community management, such as decentralised water systems, show promise in building resilience and ensuring that all community members have reliable access to safe drinking water amid climate-related challenges (Gibson & Pieper, 2017; Morin et al., 2015).

8.2       When Systems Fail, Who Pays the Price?

As we reflect on the lessons learned from water privatisation failures, it becomes evident that the primary costs of these broken promises are borne by the communities that ultimately rely on these systems. The unfortunate reality is that financial failures are compounded by moral and ethical failures, as the right to water becomes collateral in corporate strategies focused on profitability (Schularick, 2014; Malecki et al., 2017). As examined through various case studies, community reinvestment, public accountability, and effective governance emerge as imperative components necessary to reclaim water as a shared resource and safeguard against the impending risks of climate change.

Citing the experiences from different regions, we can underscore that the time has come to prioritise sustainable public water management structures built on solidarity, accountability, and community engagement rather than depending on private enterprises. As communities worldwide continue to advocate for their rights to water and equitable access, shifting the narrative from privatisation to public stewardship is essential for ensuring that water remains a shared and protected resource for generations to come.

REFERENCE :

Agwa Maryline Akinyi & Paul A. Odundo (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

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

Thérèse Rudebeck (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

R. J. Tebbutt, John Adam Guy, R. J. Cochin, & J.N. Lester (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

Harrison B. Zeff & Gregory W. Characklis (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

Josses Mugabi & Cyrus Njiru (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

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

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

Cyrus Njiru & Kevin Sansom (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

Sam Kayaga (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

Fidele Karamage, Chi Zhang, Felix Ndayisaba, Lamek Nahayo, Alphonse Kayiranga, James Kehinde Omifolaji, Hua Shao, Alice Umuhoza, Jean Baptiste Nsengiyumva, & Tong Liu (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

Larysa Yakymova & Vasyl Kuz (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

Amr A.G. Hassanein & Reham Khalifa (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

David Gorelick, David Gold, Patrick M. Reed, & Gregory W. Characklis (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

Harrison B. Zeff, Joseph Kasprzyk, Jonathan D. Herman, Patrick M. Reed, & Gregory W. Characklis (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

Abdullah Murrar, Madan M. Batra, & James A. Rodger (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

Magdalena Tyszer, Anna Chmielowska, & Barbara Tomaszewska (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

Timothy Bartholomew & Meagan S. Mauter (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

Christine Mawia Julius & Elizabeth Kalunda (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

Rachel Baum, Gregory W. Characklis, & Marc L. Serre (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

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

Jeffrey W. Rogers & Garrick Louis (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

Stanley B. Grant, Kimberly Duong, Megan A. Rippy, Gregory Pierce, David L. Feldman, Enrique Zanetti, & Amy L. McNulty (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

Yuguang Ji, Maoli Ji, Gang Yang, & Shulan Dong (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

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

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

Kinga-Erzsébet Fülöp & Árpád-Zoltán Fülöp (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

Husnain Haider, Rehan Sadiq, & Solomon Tesfamariam (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

J Gardner, Elisabeth Kohls, & Daniel B. Gingerich (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

Glen T. Daigger (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, Azriyenni Azhari Zakri, & Iman Satria (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

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