The reality is that water infrastructure requires continual replacement and upgrades, pumps and pipes do not last forever. No matter who owns the infrastructure it requires investments. Indianapolis needed to make the investment in its system no matter who operated the facility. It is incorrect to imply that the contract operation increased rates, it was the need for infrastructure investment and the City’s bonding to pay for it that is largely the cause.

Private operators view the infrastructure as an asset and continually spend money maintaining it so it will continue to provide revenue. Municipalities sometimes conveniently overlook the investment aspect of a water system. Setting municipal rates are subject to politics and investments in infrastructure are sometimes put off to appease voters. The result is a backlog of required system replacements and upgrades that eventually have to done and most often are paid for with borrowed money.

The author also glosses over the fact that privately owned water systems are regulated utilities requiring approval for their rates. Using rates as a comparison of cost without some accounting for complexity, water quality, reliability and relative age of its infrastructure is not a valid measure to compare public, private and contract operated water systems. Each method of delivering water has its place and benefits; determining which best fits a community’s needs requires a more careful and thoughtful analysis.