This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WaterWikipedia:WikiProject WaterTemplate:WikiProject WaterWater
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
Kristin at H+K (talk·contribs) has been paid by H+K Strategies on behalf of National Association of Water Companies. COI declare: On behalf of my client, NAWC, I may propose some updates to the Water privatization in the United States article via the talk page but I will not edit the article myself.
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Princessp.
Please post any discussion here, from my perspective, the article needs a lead-in section and an increase in the length of the articles as well as more sources. Still a good start class article non the less...Kayz911 (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just added a link from Water Privatization page, so it's no longer an orphan. I think we could find more cases of water privatization. It's looking good though! Paranini (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if User:John_Steventon posted this article and has since then not edited the article any more, nor any other Wikipedia articles. There is a lot of useful information in the article. However, the article is written more like an essay, rather than an entry in an encyclopedia. Also, much of the article is about water privatization in general (pros and cons). I think the article should be shortened concerning the generalities and, if possible, more information on water privatization in the United States should be added.--Mschiffler (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find this article very biased in favor of privatization and should include balancing examples and perspective such as that of Maude Barlow. I don't understand how Wikipedia works nor do I have the time to figure it out or edit the article at this time but I want to flag that at this point it is very unreliable. -Karina Lutz
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
On behalf of my employer, Hill+Knowlton Strategies, I'd like to propose some updates to this article (specifically the "Criticism" and "Support" sections) for our client, the National Association of Water Companies. I appreciate that this article was initially written as an educational assignment, but the current version has many problems, including unsourced content, text sourced by dead or non-existent links, copyright violations, and content that is not applicable to either the "Criticism" or "Support" sections. Both of these sections are in general need of some organization and updating.
I've identified some specific concerns and provided proposed text for these two sections below.
"Criticism" section
"Local government leaders have looked to privatization of more traditional public services, like water, in an effort to save the users money as well as downsize services and overall management burden of the local government. However, critics have pointed to rate hikes, poor responsiveness, impacts on water resources, and false claims of cost savings as reasons why local governments should avoid removing the management of a water service from public hands." This content is unsourced, so I'm proposing removing.
"In an analysis of an ICMA (International City/County Management Association) service delivery survey, Mildred Warner, author of Water Privatization Does Not Yield Cost Savings, Warner asserts that the empirical lessons from thousands of local government managers tell a clear and compelling story. Water service is a poor candidate for privatization." Not only are Warner's findings inaccurately summarized here, but the language is not encyclopedic ("tell a clear and compelling story"). I recommend the following instead: "Mildred Warner, a professor in the Department of City and Regional Planning at Cornell University and expert of government service delivery and privatization, completed a comprehensive analysis of all published water distribution studies published between 1960 and 2009. She and her colleagues found no evidence for cost savings."
"Economic analyses of only the operating efficiencies of privately operated systems versus publicly operated systems show mixed results, with four studies finding that private utilities are more efficient, five studies finding that public utilities are more efficient, and three studies finding no differences in efficiencies between private and public water utilities." This text is a copyright violation, not from Reference #4 (as the inline citation suggests), but from Reference #3. Also, this content is not an argument for or against privatization, so the text should be paraphrased and moved to another section, or simply removed.
"There are other critics of privitazation that is outside the classic argument of "public" versus "private". The most of fundamental example being that privatization simply does not lead to cost savings. Again, Mildred Warner argues, that the United States is the ideal location to study the question of cost savings and water privatization. Because the United States, "arguably has the most favorable conditions for privatization of any nation." We have robust, competitive markets at the local level. We have city managers who believe in market delivery. We have user fees that make water contracts attractive and potentially profitable to private purveyors. And we have a fiscal crisis that causes city managers to look at the potential of private investment to upgrade water systems." This text claims that the U.S. has favorable conditions for privatization and should be moved to a different section of the article, if kept at all. I propose replacing this text with the following, (including the replaced language re: the Warner analysis noted above) which is grammatically correct and on-topic: "There are other criticisms of privatization outside the classic argument of "public" versus "private", the most of fundamental example being the claim that privatization does not lead to cost savings. Mildred Warner, a professor in the Department of City and Regional Planning at Cornell University and expert of government service delivery and privatization, completed a comprehensive analysis of all published water distribution studies published between 1960 and 2009. She and her colleagues found no evidence for cost savings."
"In this Water Resources Planning and Management Journal the authors argue, "These experiences and documents show that the Gordian Knot of ideological debate about privatization can be cut rather than undone. We do not need to decide if private or public "players" are superior, in the abstract. We need to implement and enforce the "rules of the game" under which private or public utilities or operators are efficient and responsive to social needs and desires." This text does not appear to be a criticism of privatization but rather a summary of this paper's conclusion: that both public and private operators have to be "efficient and responsive". This content should be removed.
"Support" section
"According to the World Bank, it is estimated that in the United States each dollar of public funds raised for utilities has an opportunity cost of $1.30 of private consumption, and the average opportunity cost for each dollar of tax revenue raised is $1.17 for 38 African countries." This content is not only a copyright violation, but related to Africa. I recommend replacing the content and concentrating on U.S.-centric evidence.
"A study on solutions to appropriating renewable fresh water suggested that water is often wasted because it is under-priced and therefore under-appreciated. Direct and indirect subsidies (especially for agricultural use) are still common in both developed and developing countries. Removing such subsidies and letting water prices rise can provide incentives for conservation and for the investments needed to spread more efficient technologies.[7] Lending support to the findings of the University of Michigan study, a survey conducted in 2004 by Global Water Intelligence found that the under-pricing of water is widespread. The study analyzed the prices charged by water utilities in 132 major cities worldwide and found that 39 percent of water utilities had average tariffs that are set too low to cover basic operation and maintenance costs. Some 30 percent had tariffs that are set below the level required to make any contribution toward the recovery of capital costs." This content is not in support of water privatization and perhaps belongs in another section of the article, or simply removed.
"The industry has been growing an average of about 19 percent per year over the last seven years, which is great considering the recession." This sentence is currently unsourced and, even if true, describes an industry trend and not an argument supporting water privatization.
"The industry has been growing an average of about 19 percent per year over the last seven years, which is great considering the recession. In addition, a whopping 97 percent of municipalities that had existing water-management contracts come up for renewal in 2002 and 2003 elected to remain in a public-private partnership. Since 1998, an average of 92.5 percent have been renewed. These statistics are clear signs that municipalities are very satisfied with the results of the partnerships they have set up." In addition to including "peacock" and non-encyclopedic language, this information is sourced by a bad URL. I propose replacing the text with similar but more recent statistics.
The proposed draft below also includes additional arguments in support of water privatization. They are sourced appropriately.
Following is my new proposed text to replace the existing sections:
In "Water Privatization Trends in the United States: Human Rights, National Security, and Public Stewardship", Craig Anthony Arnold argues that there is a lack of incentive for private water companies to carry out improvements or maintenance in public water systems that will have lasting benefits beyond their contract term.[1]
There are other criticisms of privatization outside the classic argument of "public" versus "private", the most of fundamental example being the claim that privatization does not lead to cost savings. Mildred Warner, a professor in the Department of City and Regional Planning at Cornell University and expert of government service delivery and privatization, completed a comprehensive analysis of all published water distribution studies published between 1960 and 2009. She and her colleagues found no evidence for cost savings.[2]
Another argument against privatization in the U.S. is for security reasons. Arnold writes, "The critical dependence of the U.S. public on public water supply systems, surface waters, groundwater, and water infrastructure heighten the vulnerability of these systems not only to conflict and scarcity but also to terrorism and intentional harm. Therefore, we require savvy, farreaching, effective government oversight of our water supplies and facilities for their security. Decentralized private control of waters and water systems complicates the government's attempts to fulfill this responsibility."[1]
Private water companies have existed in the United States for more than 200 years and number in the thousands today. The private water industry serves more than 73 million Americans.[3] According to the National Association of Water Companies (NAWC), more than 2,000 facilities operate in public-private partnership contract arrangements.[4] Data from Public Works Financing shows that 5,391 private water contracts came up for renewal from 2000-2015 and 97 were renewed within the industry.[5][6]
Within the United States, there is widespread, bipartisan support for the role of private water in improving infrastructure and delivering safe drinking water. The U.S. Conference of Mayors Urban Water Council,[7] the National League of Cities,[8] the Brookings Institute,[9][10] and the White House have said that private water companies provide proven and important options for municipalities facing urgent water infrastructure and operational needs.[11]
Private water companies enable communities to gain access to needed capital for infrastructure investment.[12][13][14] Each year, private water companies invest billions of dollars to improve water systems, conduct research, and develop new technologies.[15][16] A water system run by the private sector can be more efficient and cost effective.[17][18] Libertarian organizations such as the Reason Foundation have argued that privatizing water systems increases environmental compliance and reduces bureaucratic inefficiency, citing how studies have shown privatizing utility ownership or management reduces costs.[19][20] In addition, private utilities contribute via taxes to the economies of municipalities they serve.[21]
The largest private water utilities have fewer EPA violations, fines, or work orders when it comes to compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. An American Water Intelligence analysis of EPA data from 2001-2011 shows that NAWC members had 0.09 EPA enforcement actions per 1 million customers, while all other water operators had 30.03 EPA enforcement actions per 1 million customers.[22] According to an analysis of EPA data from 2010-2013, publicly operated water systems are more likely to incur health violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act than privately operated water systems.[23] According to Governing, public water employees are more likely to suffer an injury or illness on the job than private sector water employees.[24]
I am happy for someone to review the proposed text to make sure it is balanced, neutral, and appropriately sourced. I am also happy to go line by line, providing additional specificity as needed. Thank you for your thoughts. Kristin at H+K (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@St170e: Thank you so much for your assistance. However, I did notice that the edit created some reference errors. At the bottom of the article, where some of the references are defined, can you please remove the definitions for "Human_Appropriation", "the_case_for", "UNCW", and "renzetti", "no_cost_savings", "water_privatization_trends", and "NAWC". This will eliminate all of the error messages and won't cause any issues with the references now supporting the updated text. Thanks again for your help. Kristin at H+K (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kristin at H+K: Hello! I noticed that myself, I should've noticed at the time of the original edit. There is a bit of a problem (or maybe I've misunderstood a bit). For the references you've mentioned at the bottom of the article, did you want me to remove those specific references in their entirety? Each reference mentioned as footnote needs a name and needs to be used in the article. The referencing issues are being caused by the fact that each of those references you've mentioned have another reference of the same name. --st170etalk14:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@St170e: Hi! That’s no problem, I did look at it and editing the article the way I suggested above will not affect any sources being retained but will eliminate the ones that should be removed due to dead links, inappropriate sourcing, etc. Removing the 7 reference definitions I listed will eliminate all of the error messages. Thanks again! Kristin at H+K (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@St170e: I just noticed that the word "percent" is missing in the Support section, last sentence of the first paragraph. It should read "97 percent were renewed within the industry." Are you able to help me with this edit? Thanks again for all your help. Kristin at H+K (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Princessp.
Done Hello Kristin at H+K, I've implemented your edits. Thank you. --st170etalk 16:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at and Western Carolina University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.