Water supply outsourcing welcome - but, why the secrecy?

The state has apparently launched on a programme to 'privatise' water supply in quite a few cities in the state, going by the below clip from NewsX.

Perhaps, they have found bold to do so based on the fairly satisfactory progress (check this) of the 'outsourcing' and upgradation contract entered into with TATA-owned JUSCO in Mysore.

And, immediately, the Socialists are up in arms, ringing alarm bells, harping on their pet theme that water is natural resource, and should therefore be accessible to all for free. But, like I have repeatedly pointed out earlier also, you can have all the water you want if you go to the source – a river, lake, or wherever; but, for it to be made available at the turn of the tap in your home, you need power – to pump it, filter it, etc, etc, which have costs attached to them. Further, in Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Surat, Kolkatta, etc, this power has been provided by private players for years together, and most reliably too. When that’s the case, why can’t some meaningful arrangement be entered into with similar companies for water supply also? What is there to be so alarmist about it all? These companies will have as much of a stake as anybody else in the proper development of the city, very much as decided by the elected representatives, giving added meaning to the term ‘stake-holder’. More on that may be accessed here.

Apart from the above, enough debating on the ideological issues involved has happened here, as also here, apart from many more blogs accessible on PRAJA.

The current position in the US is briefly described here: Ravaged by the recent economic recession, more municipalities are considering selling or leasing their water systems in order to quickly infuse dwindling coffers with much needed cash. Analysis released today by the national consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch reveals that as of October 2010, at least 39 communities in the U.S. were considering selling or leasing their water systems to private operators—more than five times the number of completed privatization deals in a typical year over the last two decades. The typical water system poised for privatization in 2010 served 45 times as many people as those leased or sold over the last twenty years. The average system up for privatization in 2010 served nearly 283,000 people, whereas those that had been privatized served an average of 6,285 customers. The full report can be accessed here.

As compared to the US, the only major 'privatisation' of city water supply in the country has perhaps been in Mysore. And again, unlike in the US, in Mysore (as also the arrangements proposed for the other cities, I am sure), the contract is a PPP for upgradation of the infrastructure and outsourcing of the supply, with the sources remaining fully under the control of the government. Further, apart from the financial constraints, is the matter of technical capability to undertake these specialised tasks, all of which are progressively falling on the municipalities, resulting from decentralisation, brought on by the 73rd and 74th amendments.

Yes, the government needs to be more open about it all. The fear perhaps is of the Socialist back-lash. But, they should realise that times have changed, and the people want efficiency and quality. And, in the process, if the 40 odd percent currently recorded as losses, gets accounted, the costs can be contained too, apart from people having to rely lesser and lesser on tanker supplies.

Another reason for the secrecy may of course be the scope these contracts provide for big underhand money for the neta-babu combo involved. Well, certainly nobody can tolerate that any longer.

Muralidhar Rao