Comments on: If Water Rates Rise, You Should Privatize!

By: Protektor

Protektor — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 08:17:17 +0000

You only need to look at Atlanta to see why privatizing the water supply is a very very bad idea. The quality of the water dropped to basically unusable and the cost of water went through the roof. Remember companies are in it to make as big a profit as they possibly can, not to sell you water at a cheap rate. Water is fast becoming the biggest market on the planet. Corporations are already complaining that 80% of the water supply in the US is controlled by the government, so it’s hard for them to make a good profit off water. Forbes Magazine says water is going to be the fastest rising investment in the next 10-15 years.

Water supplies are dropping significantly in the west. Lake Mead is the largest reservoir in the US. It is currently down to 40%, from 1999 being at 100% capacity.

“I know what people say—water’s a lot like air. Do you charge for air? Course not; you shouldn’t charge for water,” says T. Boone Pickens. “Well, OK, watch what happens. You won’t have any water.” T. Boon Pickens is the largest owner of water rights in the Texas area, and growing.

You want to see the price of water go through the roof, just privatize and corporations will try to make as much profit as they can squeeze out of the public on it. That is what you can look forward to for privatizing water. Privatizing the water system is a terrible idea. Google it. It is amazing/sad what corporations are doing with water.

By: Josh Smith

Josh Smith — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:53:23 +0000

I hope you realize that when David Stokes suggests privatizing city water, he is not angling for ruthless capture of a natural resource by an unaccountable "evil corporation"; he is suggesting that perhaps the water in St Louis city could be processed and sold by the same organization that processes and sells the water in most of St Louis County. They don't charge exorbitant rates, or put poison in the water, they are just a business, whose purpose seems to be providing cheap, quality water to their customers. There are other options for stewardship of our water which would free up capital and bureaucratic resources for the city of St Louis. For more information about how privatizing city water could help, why not read the study Stokes wrote and already linked to? If you find things in there worth objecting to, feel free to comment about them. Also, name calling is totally unnecessary, and anyway I think that the names you are calling here are not as loaded with venom as you would like.

By: Douglas Duckworth

Douglas Duckworth — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:49:42 +0000

Thanks Milton, but simply because something has worth does not mean it should be sold. Water is required for life to exist. You admit the quality is great. The City has no reason do defend itself. Private corporations should demonstrate how they can maintain it at existing levels or improve it. Though corporations are obligated to shareholders not public integrity. Maybe BP or Blackwater could take it over?

By: Ed Golterman

Ed Golterman — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 07:47:33 +0000

City-collect the ticket tax on admissions to all entertainment
events and the water rates do not have to rise. Also,David..
find out if some big companies and operations in the City do not
pay a water bill.