Comparison of water pricing for publicly and privately owned water utilities in the United States

Wait, Isaac W.; Petrie, William Adam

doi:10.1080/02508060.2017.1406782

Cited by 21 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Chong et al (2006) employ a switching regression model with a database of 5,000 French local public authorities and find that the choice of water utility ownership made by local authorities is not random and that a Public-Private partnership on average charges a higher water price than either publicly or privately owned utilities. Similarly, Wait and Petrie (2017) and Garcia-Valiñas et al (2013) find that privately owned water utilities have a higher price of water in the United States and France, respectively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Effectiveness of Public versus Private Ownership: Violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

Fu¹,

Liu²,

Swallow³

2020

Agric. Resour. Econom. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relative performance of public and private enterprises has been long debated. We construct a comprehensive violation dataset based on the EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System to empirically investigate the compliance behavior of publicly and privately owned Public Water Systems (PWSs). Our results show that publicly owned PWSs commit significantly more Maximum Contamination Level, Treatment Technique, and Health-Related violations but fewer Monitor and Reporting violations than privately owned PWSs. We also find that municipal-level heterogeneities explain a substantial amount of variation in violation behaviors among PWSs, suggesting water supply quality depends crucially on location-specific regulations and local economic conditions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Effectiveness of Public versus Private Ownership: Violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

Fu¹,

Liu²,

Swallow³

2020

Agric. Resour. Econom. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, under the equity objective, such large variations need to be considered negatively on the basis of transparency and equality. Furthermore, some evidence shows that poor populations suffer from large inequalities in water prices that can arise from price differences related to ownership differences (private vs. public) of urban water utilities [61], or from the uneven application of free-market reforms in developing countries [62]. Finally, decentralization is seen as a way to increase participation in the water sector and deepen democracy and equity [49,63].…”

Section: Scorecard Design and Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Scorecard Assessment of Urban Water Pricing Policies—The Case of Jordan and Iran

Al‐Saidi

Dehnavi

2019

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban water pricing is becoming increasingly important due to the rapid rate of urbanization and the expansion of water reclamation and reuse. The mounting evidence of failures of current pricing schemes makes analyzing their performance essential for understanding the adequacy of economic and sustainability policies in water management. However, urban water pricing policies are complex, serve multiple objectives, and vary widely across regions and countries. This paper presents an assessment framework for urban water pricing policies based on common conditions advocated for well-functioning pricing policies. Using a simplified scorecard, it compares the performance of urban water pricing policies in Jordan and Iran, two countries under growing scarcity pressure. Both countries show serious deficiencies with regard to the economic valuation of water services and the cost recovery of utilities. Public policies are rather oriented towards access and affordability, with Jordan showing a higher level of transparency and competition in tariff-setting. The assessment tool indicates a high potential for experience-sharing in future reforms, which should promote water as a scarce good. Such reforms need to prioritize full cost valuation, participation, and scientifically based designs of local and regional water tariffs.prices in one subsector such as irrigation [9][10][11]. Nauges and van den Berg [12] compared 11 case studies and determined that cost performance, and hence the ideal pricing model, depends on economic development in general, and even on corruption perception or investment protection. Recent comparative studies confirm the notion about the heterogeneity of pricing policies and their performance. A study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation (OECD) [13] emphasized the importance of tariffs that are tailored to local conditions. Accordingly, the practice of metering is unevenly adopted across OECD countries. Besides, environmental water charges such as abstraction charges, pollution/effluent charges, or water-use permits are emerging as a new kind of water tariff.Due to the varying objectives and great heterogeneity in tariff structures on the local scale, the literature on water pricing has so far offered little means of assessing the overall performance of water pricing across countries. Dinar et al. [14] presented many country-level case studies with various types of water tariffs and policy innovations. They did not regard these case studies as 'best practices', nor did they provide any assessment method across the case studies. Instead, they pointed out some underlying trends such as the shift in water-pricing objectives from cost recovery and efficiency towards social and environmental considerations. Accordingly, water pricing is becoming a key issue across the globe due to increasing investment to achieve water security. Similarly, Zetland and Gasson [15], in their analysis of 308 cities in 102 countries, did not indicate in which locations water pricing policies are better-performing. Rath...

show abstract

“…Water rates vary across countries and even within regions of the same country (Hoque & Wichelns, 2013, Zetland & Gasson, 2013 and scholars have analyzed the variety of factors that influence or determine water rates (David, et al, 2014;González-Gómez et al, 2018;Wait & Petrie, 2017). One of them is ownership structure, which is the focus of our paper.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, is there a significant difference in water rates across private and public water utilities? While some studies show that privately owned water utilities charge higher prices for water (Beecher & Kalmbach, 2013;Wait & Petrie, 2017), others find no difference between public and private operators (Bel, Fageda & Warner, 2010). There is a longstanding and contentious debate about water privatization (Tortajada, et al, 2013), and water rate pricing is one of the central factors in that debate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our study builds upon previous studies examining factors related to water pricing and affordability for community water systems in the US (Beecher & Kalmbach, 2013;Wait & Petrie, 2017). Aside from comprehensive representation (including the entire universe of large water systems in the US), our study expands the analysis in the following ways: we are interested if ownership can differentiate water rates (the annual water bill for a typical household) and affordability (the percent low-income families spend on water).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Water Pricing and Affordability in the US: Public vs Private Ownership

Zhang¹,

Rivas²,

Grant³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the 500 largest community water systems in the US to explore if ownership is related to annual water bills and the percent of income that low-income households spend on water. Results show that, among the largest water systems, private ownership is related to higher water prices and less affordability for low-income families. In states with regulations favorable to private providers, water utilities charge even higher prices. Affordability issues are more severe in communities with higher poverty and older infrastructure. Water policy needs to address ownership and regulation and explore new mechanisms to ensure water affordability for low-income residents.

show abstract

Comparison of water pricing for publicly and privately owned water utilities in the United States

Cited by 21 publications

References 23 publications

Effectiveness of Public versus Private Ownership: Violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

Effectiveness of Public versus Private Ownership: Violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

Comparative Scorecard Assessment of Urban Water Pricing Policies—The Case of Jordan and Iran

Water Pricing and Affordability in the US: Public vs Private Ownership

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About