Modern water treatment facility with filtration systems and workers monitoring operations
Public water infrastructure serves billions while cities worldwide reconsider ownership models

In Spain, more than 50 municipalities have reclaimed their water systems from private corporations since 2015. Across the United States, communities from Maine to California are buying out investor-owned utilities at record rates. Paris took back its water supply in 2010, saving €35 million annually while expanding services. This isn't nostalgia for the old ways or political grandstanding. It's a data-driven reassessment of who should control the pipes, wires, and fiber that modern civilization depends on.

The pendulum that swung toward privatization in the 1980s and 90s is swinging back. But this time, cities aren't just reclaiming infrastructure because privatization failed. They're doing it because the challenges ahead—climate transition, digital equity, infrastructure renewal—demand accountability that quarterly earnings reports can't provide.

The Natural Monopoly Question

When you turn on your tap or flip a light switch, you're accessing what economists call a natural monopoly. It makes no sense to run competing water mains down every street or duplicate electrical grids. The capital costs are enormous, the economies of scale overwhelming. One system serving everyone will always be more efficient than multiple systems competing for customers.

This reality shaped infrastructure development for over a century. The question wasn't whether these services would be monopolies but who would own them and under what rules. From the late 1800s through the mid-20th century, most developed nations chose public ownership. By 2011, over three-quarters of U.S. local governments provided water distribution entirely with public employees.

But starting in the 1980s, a different theory gained traction. Private companies, proponents argued, would bring efficiency, innovation, and capital without burdening taxpayers. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund made privatization a condition for development loans in dozens of countries. By 2007, private water operators served 270 million people globally, with 110 million in developing countries.

The results of this grand experiment are now in. And they're complicated.

What Actually Happened When Services Were Privatized

Let's start with the promised cost savings. A comprehensive 2009 study by Mildred Warner analyzing water distribution systems found no evidence for cost reductions from privatization. None. In England and Wales, water tariffs increased 46% in inflation-adjusted terms during the first nine years after the 1989 privatization. Berlin's partial privatization in 1999 saw tariffs jump 15% in 2004 alone, while the state government's revenue from the utility declined.

Cost savings from privatization rarely materialize in practice. England saw 46% tariff increases, Berlin saw 15% jumps in a single year, and comprehensive U.S. studies found zero evidence of reduced costs.

The pattern repeats across sectors and continents. When Atlanta hired United Water to manage its system under a 20-year contract in 1999, the deal lasted just four years before the city terminated it following widespread complaints about discolored water and service failures.

Utility crew repairing water pipes in urban street excavation with safety equipment
Long-term maintenance incentives differ dramatically between public and private ownership models

But the regulatory compliance picture is murkier. EPA enforcement data from 2001-2011 showed private utilities experienced 0.09 enforcement actions per million customers, compared with 30.03 for all other water operators. This seems to favor private management until you dig deeper. Private companies typically take over well-maintained urban systems, while public utilities often serve aging infrastructure in financially stressed communities.

The investment question is perhaps most revealing. Craig Anthony Arnold's 2009 analysis found that private water companies have little incentive to invest in long-term improvements or maintenance beyond the duration of their contracts. Why would they? A 10-year contract doesn't justify a 30-year capital improvement plan, especially when the next operator will inherit the benefits.

France, the birthplace of the modern water concession model, recognized this flaw. In 1998, the country shifted to affermage contracts where private operators handled operations and maintenance while municipalities retained responsibility for major capital investments. It preserved some private efficiency while keeping strategic control in public hands.

The Remunicipalization Wave

The failures of privatization created a global movement that barely existed a generation ago. Spain has seen more than 50 municipalities reclaim water systems since 2015. Paris, Grenoble, Berlin, Atlanta, Indianapolis, and dozens of smaller cities worldwide have taken back utilities that were once privatized.

These aren't ideological crusades. They're pragmatic decisions driven by measurable outcomes. When Paris remunicipalized its water system in 2010, it wasn't because of abstract principles about public goods. It was because the city calculated it could save €35 million annually while expanding access and improving service quality.

"The increased interest in privatizing public water services is an outgrowth of political forces and public policies favoring privatization of public services generally, and water resources specifically."

— Wikipedia entry on water privatization in the United States

Indianapolis took a different path in 2011, transferring its water and wastewater systems to Citizens Energy Group, a nonprofit charitable trust. The model preserves public benefit objectives while operating with greater managerial flexibility than a traditional government department. It's one of several hybrid approaches emerging as cities experiment with governance structures.

Fiber optic cables being installed for municipal broadband network infrastructure
Over 900 U.S. communities now operate municipal broadband networks despite industry opposition

The movement extends beyond water. Community Choice Aggregation programs now serve millions of customers in California, allowing municipalities to procure electricity on behalf of residents while private utilities continue managing distribution infrastructure. It's public ownership of the energy purchase decision without the capital burden of owning power plants and transmission lines.

Municipal broadband networks are proliferating despite fierce opposition from incumbent providers. Chattanooga, Tennessee's publicly owned fiber network offers gigabit speeds at prices well below commercial alternatives while generating surplus revenue. More than 900 U.S. communities now have some form of municipal broadband service.

How Public Utilities Actually Work

The caricature of government bureaucracy fails to explain why publicly owned utilities consistently rank higher in customer satisfaction surveys than their private counterparts. It doesn't account for innovation or efficiency improvements in public systems.

The Tennessee Valley Authority, created during the Depression, transformed one of America's poorest regions while pioneering large-scale hydroelectric development, flood control, and rural electrification. Today it serves 10 million people across seven states as a government corporation that receives no taxpayer funding.

Electric cooperatives, owned by their member-customers rather than shareholders or governments, serve 42 million people in the United States. They operate on a not-for-profit basis, returning margins to members and maintaining strong track records for reliability and customer satisfaction.

These systems work because their incentives differ fundamentally from investor-owned utilities. Private utilities optimize for shareholder returns, not affordability or universal access. Public and cooperative utilities optimize for service delivery at cost. Neither model is inherently superior in all contexts, but the alignment of incentives matters enormously.

Democratic accountability mechanisms vary widely. Some public utilities are governed by elected boards, others by commissions appointed by elected officials. The best systems incorporate participatory budgeting, regular public meetings, and transparent reporting requirements that far exceed what's required of private companies.

The challenge is that democratic oversight can become democratic interference. Political cycles don't align with infrastructure planning horizons. Elected officials face pressure to keep rates artificially low rather than investing in necessary improvements. These are real problems, but they're governance problems that can be addressed through institutional design, not inherent flaws in public ownership.

The Climate Factor Changes Everything

Here's where the ownership question becomes urgent rather than academic. Meeting climate goals requires transforming energy infrastructure at a pace and scale unprecedented outside wartime. Utilities need to phase out fossil fuel generation, build massive renewable capacity, modernize grids for two-way power flows, deploy energy storage, and manage the complex orchestration of distributed resources.

Rooftop solar panels installed on homes in suburban neighborhood for distributed energy
Community Choice Aggregation programs consistently procure higher renewable percentages than private utilities

Private utilities face a fundamental conflict. They earn returns on capital investments in generation and transmission. Efficiency improvements that reduce electricity consumption erode their revenue base. Rooftop solar and battery storage threaten their business model. Their fiduciary duty runs to shareholders seeking returns, not to climate stability.

Private utilities' business models often conflict with climate goals. They profit from selling more electricity and building more infrastructure, creating perverse incentives against efficiency and distributed energy.

Some regulators have tried to realign these incentives through performance-based regulation and decoupling mechanisms that break the link between sales volume and profits. Results have been mixed. Regulatory innovation can nudge behavior, but it's swimming against the current of the profit motive.

Public utilities face different constraints. They must maintain affordable rates and reliable service, but they don't answer to shareholders demanding 10% annual returns. When utilities are publicly owned, climate goals can be directly incorporated into their mission rather than layered on through regulation.

Community Choice Aggregation programs in California demonstrate this potential. These publicly controlled energy buyers consistently procure higher percentages of renewable energy than investor-owned utilities in the same territories. MCE, California's first CCA, delivers over 60% renewable energy compared to the state mandate of 33% for investor-owned utilities.

That said, ownership structure isn't destiny. As the Sightline Institute notes, the rules utilities operate under matter as much as who owns them. Some public utilities remain heavily dependent on coal, while some private utilities have made impressive renewable investments. But public ownership removes a structural barrier to rapid decarbonization.

The Governance Challenge

If public ownership offers advantages for climate action, affordability, and democratic accountability, why isn't it universal? Because governance is genuinely hard, and the consequences of failure are severe.

Public utility commission officials conducting meeting in professional governance setting
Democratic accountability mechanisms distinguish public ownership from profit-driven models

Detroit's water system illustrates the challenge. Facing $5 billion in debt, the city began shutting off service to thousands of non-paying customers weekly in 2014. The United Nations condemned the shutoffs as a human rights violation. But the underlying problem wasn't public ownership itself. It was decades of deferred maintenance, population loss, economic collapse, and political dysfunction.

Privatization proponents point to Detroit as evidence that governments can't run utilities. But Atlanta's failed privatization shows that private companies can't solve problems rooted in poverty, industrial decline, and inadequate investment. Changing ownership doesn't magically generate capital or create viable rate bases in economically devastated communities.

Successful public utilities share several characteristics. They have professional management insulated from day-to-day political pressure. They maintain transparent, predictable rate-setting processes. They invest consistently in maintenance and capital improvements rather than deferring costs. They establish clear performance metrics and report publicly on results.

"Public utilities are subject to forms of public control and regulation ranging from local community-based groups to statewide government monopolies."

— Wikipedia article on Public Utilities

The public utility commission model, used across the United States, creates a regulatory buffer between politicians and utility operations. Commissioners set rates, approve major investments, and enforce service standards based on administrative law principles rather than political expediency. When applied to publicly owned utilities, this structure can provide stability and expertise while preserving democratic accountability.

Participatory governance mechanisms are emerging as another answer. Rather than leaving all decisions to experts and elected officials, some utilities incorporate citizen assemblies, participatory budgeting for capital projects, and structured public input processes that go beyond perfunctory comment periods.

What Works Where

No single ownership model dominates because local context matters enormously. A rural electric cooperative serving 5,000 members faces different challenges than a metropolitan water authority serving millions. A municipality with strong credit and professional management can successfully operate utilities that would fail in a financially stressed city with weak institutions.

In developing countries, private participation often proved problematic not because private companies are incompetent but because weak regulatory capacity made it impossible to write enforceable contracts or monitor performance. When institutions can't ensure accountability, private concessions become opportunities for rent extraction.

Dense urban areas often benefit most from public ownership because the revenue base can support professional management and capital investment. Paris, Berlin, and other major European cities successfully remunicipalized after concluding that scale and sophistication allowed them to capture efficiencies without private sector involvement.

Rural areas face different math. Electric cooperatives emerged because private companies found rural service unprofitable and governments lacked the administrative capacity to reach dispersed populations. The cooperative model aligned incentives perfectly: members paid for service at cost, making rural electrification financially viable.

Telecommunications presents unique challenges. Municipal broadband networks succeed in markets where private providers underinvest, but they face fierce political opposition funded by incumbent telecom companies. Some states have banned or restricted municipal broadband despite strong demand and successful existing networks.

The hybrid models emerging in energy may point toward the future. Community Choice Aggregation separates energy procurement from infrastructure operation, letting municipalities control the commodity while private utilities maintain the physical grid. It captures public control benefits without requiring cities to become power plant operators.

The Global Divergence

While much of Europe and parts of the United States move toward remunicipalization, other regions continue privatizing. The divergence reflects different governance capacity, political economy, and institutional trust.

Chile's 1998 constitutional requirement for private water provision created one of the world's most privatized systems. The law was designed to attract investment and eliminate political interference in utility management. But it also eliminated democratic input and subordinated access to market principles. In 2019, Austria took the opposite path, constitutionally banning water privatization as a safeguard against future ideological shifts.

Constitutional decisions about utility ownership lock in choices for decades. Austria banned water privatization in its constitution in 2019, while Chile mandated private provision in 1998—opposite approaches reflecting fundamentally different values.

These constitutional provisions matter because utility ownership tends to be sticky. Once infrastructure is privatized, buying it back requires significant capital. Long-term contracts lock in arrangements that outlast the politicians who negotiated them. Constitutional protections, whether for or against privatization, reflect decisions about which values should be beyond normal political negotiation.

Spain's remunicipalization wave demonstrates what's possible when contracts expire and cities have the political will and administrative capacity to take over operations. More than 50 municipalities reclaimed water services since 2015 as contracts came up for renewal and performance problems became undeniable.

The United Kingdom's privatized water system remains controversial three decades after the 1989 sale. Bills increased 46% in the first nine years while companies paid out billions in dividends. But water quality improved, and investments exceeded most projections. Whether those improvements required privatization or could have been achieved through adequately funded public utilities remains hotly contested.

Looking Forward

The infrastructure challenges ahead are immense. The grid reliability crisis facing the United States as data centers and electrification strain capacity. Aging water systems with lead pipes serving millions. Rural broadband gaps. Climate adaptation requiring flood protection and resilient infrastructure.

None of these challenges have obvious ownership solutions. But the question of who owns and controls essential services will shape how effectively we respond. Private utilities excel at operational efficiency within established business models but struggle with the kind of transformative change that upends those models. Public utilities can pursue long-term goals that don't generate immediate returns but often lack the discipline that market competition imposes.

"Private sector participation is seen by some of its proponents as a solution to improving poorly managed public water utility systems."

— Proponents of water privatization

The National Governors Association has identified innovative infrastructure financing models that blur public-private lines. Public infrastructure banks, green bonds backed by utility revenues, federal loan guarantees for municipal projects, and other mechanisms provide capital without traditional privatization.

The technical possibilities for democratic control have never been greater. Digital platforms enable unprecedented transparency in utility operations. Smart meters and sensors provide real-time performance data. Citizens can monitor, analyze, and engage with utility decisions in ways impossible a generation ago. Whether these tools strengthen accountability or just create new venues for political conflict depends on institutional design.

The Real Choice

The debate over public versus private utilities often presents a false binary. As research consistently shows, ownership structure matters less than regulatory quality, governance capacity, and institutional incentives. A well-regulated private utility can serve the public interest. A captured or dysfunctional public utility can fail spectacularly.

But ownership does set the default incentives and constraints. When private utilities block rooftop solar or lobby against efficiency standards, they're acting rationally within their mandate to maximize shareholder value. When public utilities prioritize universal access over profits, they're fulfilling their public benefit mission.

The question isn't whether one model always works better. It's which model aligns incentives with the outcomes we need for the challenges ahead. Climate transition, digital equity, infrastructure resilience, and affordable universal access all point toward governance structures that can prioritize long-term public benefit over quarterly returns.

The movement toward remunicipalization reflects growing recognition that the water, energy, communications, and transportation systems that underpin civilization are too important to optimize for private returns. They're commons-based infrastructure in the truest sense: shared resources that work best when they serve everyone and when everyone has a voice in how they're managed.

The cities taking back control of their utilities aren't rejecting markets or embracing socialism. They're making pragmatic judgments that democratic accountability, long-term planning, and mission alignment with public benefit matter more than the efficiencies that private management might deliver. They're concluding that for essential services, the commons work better than the market.

Whether this movement represents the future or just a temporary correction remains to be seen. But the evidence is mounting that for infrastructure that shapes daily life and determines whether communities can meet the challenges ahead, ownership structures matter profoundly. And increasingly, cities are deciding that ownership should rest with the people who depend on these services rather than the investors who profit from them.

Latest from Each Category