[braza]

> Water should never have been privatised. At least not without a framework for a national strategy for water.

But one can make a very fair argument where you can have a strong regulatory framework to ensure investment goals, exit clauses, and penalties in case of missing goals, no?

[rlpb]

That never happens because the appointed regulator has no incentive to efficiently and effectively regulate, either.

[braza]

In this case, the core issue is still not the privatization intrinsically, but the mechanisms of corruption and competing interests with some other areas.

I'm not a free market absolutist or a privatization zealot, but I'm curious about the fact that England cannot come up with a privatization model that ensures clawback and exit clauses, measurable goals, and a clear investment plan for it.

Even Brazil 5 years ago made a Law for the universalization of water and sewage. The goals are given in a clear-cut way:

> The Sanitation Framework standardizes deadlines and criteria nationwide: by 2033, 99% of the population must have access to water. Today, 30 million Brazilians still lack this service. The country also needs to achieve 90% access to sewage collection and treatment, a service currently not provided to 90 million Brazilians. Furthermore, water losses must be reduced from the current 40% to 25%. [1]

> Since 2020, 59 auctions have been held in 20 states, benefiting 1,529 municipalities and more than 73 million people. The contracts provide for R$178 billion in direct investments and R$56.9 billion in concession fees, totaling more than R$234.9 billion committed to the sector (for the private investment). [2]

There the responsibility for water distribution and sewage is within municipalities, and the biggest issue is that small ones cannot finance such a kind of service that demands high upfront investment and maintenance costs.

The point that I want to make here, is that the biggest issue might be the lack of enforcement and regulatory effectiveness, plus bad legal framework and contracts.

[1] - https://www12.senado.leg.br/noticias/materias/2025/09/04/san....

[2] - https://www.gov.br/cidades/pt-br/assuntos/noticias-1/noticia...

[rlpb]

> In this case, the core issue is still not the privatization intrinsically, but the mechanisms of corruption and competing interests with some other areas.

Ironically, this is also the argument for privatization in the first place - that corruption and competing interests lead to government inefficiency, that the private sector is incentivised to cut out the bloat in a way that governments cannot, and therefore something that intrinsically is a public rather than private concern should regardless be privatized.

> The point that I want to make here, is that the biggest issue might be the lack of enforcement and regulatory effectiveness, plus bad legal framework and contracts.

Absolutely. I didn't think that this was even up for debate.

[kolektiv]

Particularly when, as in the case of UK water privatisation, there's a fairly convenient revolving door between the supposed regulator and the privatised water companies. Poacher turned entirely ineffective and rather friendly gamekeeper...

[arethuza]

Nitpick - English water privatisation, I don't think the rest of the UK has private water companies - we certainly don't here in Scotland. Scottish Water is controlled by the Scottish Government.

[kolektiv]

You're absolutely right, English - my family north of the border are no doubt cursing me as we speak, I'll go and replace the cone as penance next time I'm there.

[burtness]

*England and Wales

[elAhmo]

Yes, but that would make private investment in utilities not attractive as the profits would be low or non existent.

Competing forces