In Atlanta, where services had been privatized, quality spiraled downward, leading eventually to the city’s decision to re-municipalize water services.
Policy-makers and water utility managers are increasingly reaching into constituents’ and customers’ wallets to cover increasing costs.
When thinking about water affordability, we could consider how we pay for public education.
The Carrot and the Stick The U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization reports that globally 69 percent of water is used for agriculture, 19 percent for industry, and 12 percent for households and businesses.
While it’s good news that water utilities are paying more attention to protecting source water and watersheds — they’re the ones ultimately in the hot seat for ensuring safe water — it can’t be their job alone, and it’s unfair to their customers to carry all associated costs.
In that case, to avoid building a US$6 billion treatment plant, the New York City water utility has invested in source water protection measures more than 100 miles (160 kilometers) away, such as on-farm improvements that divert cow manure from drinking water sources.
States and cities may very well go broke making up for the hoped-for federal support, and yet, acutely aware of the consequences for their constituents if they don’t act swiftly, many have shored up deficient water systems, issuing almost US$38 billion in municipal bonds for infrastructure projects related to water and sanitation in 2016.
In cities across the country, citizens call for the need to keep water services public and affordable.
To whom will our diminishing supply of clean water flow?
Sharing source water protection costs; capitalizing municipal, state and federal water infrastructure funds; and keeping water public and in the public eye are just a few of the many steps we can take to keep water affordable and inequality in check.