Table of Contents
|
1. Trends 2. Cost Savings Potential 3. Best Practices/Case Studies 4. How-To Tips |
5. Contact Information 6. Research/Articles 7. Legislation 8. Links |
1. Trends
Currently, investor-owned water companies serve approximately 15 percent of the U.S. population, and 22 percent of California’s. The remaining population receives its water from government-owned water companies.
There are 433 privately operated and publicly owned water facilities in the country. There are 31 such water facilities in the state of California. There are two leading factors responsible for the increased interest in public-private partnerships for municipal water services:
| Table 1. Contract O&M Water
Systems, 1997 |
|||||
| State | No. of Plants | Size (mgd) | State | No. of Plants | Size (mgd) |
| Alabama | 3 | 12 | Mississippi | 37 | 62 |
| Arkansas | Montana | ||||
| Arizona | North Carolina | 1 | 1 | ||
| California | 31 | 86 | New Hampshire | ||
| Colorado | New Jersey | 17 | 191 | ||
| Connecticut | New Mexico | 26 | 79 | ||
| Delaware | 1 | 5 | Not Specified | 17 | 19 |
| Florida | 4 | 4 | New York | 1 | <1 |
| Georgia | 6 | 71 | Ohio | 3 | 8 |
| Hawaii | Oklahoma | ||||
| Iowa | Oregon | 2 | 9 | ||
| Idaho | Pennsylvania | 3 | 40 | ||
| Illinois | 1 | 3 | Puerto Rico | 128 | 318 |
| Indiana | 2 | 62 | Rhode Island | ||
| Kansas | 1 | 1 | South Carolina | 1 | |
| Kentucky | 3 | 10 | Tennessee | 1 | 1 |
| Louisiana | 5 | 12 | Tennessee/ Virginia |
||
| Massachusetts | 12 | 84 | Texas | 133 | 338 |
| Maryland | Virginia | ||||
| Maine | 1 | 8 | Vermont | 1 | <1 |
| Michigan | 5 | 19 | Washington | ||
| Minnesota | Wisconsin | ||||
| Missouri | West Virginia | ||||
| Grand Total | 433 | 1407 | |||
[See: 1997 Trends in Water and Wastewater Utilities]
2. Cost Savings Potential
Cost savings from outsourcing water-delivery services typically range from 10 to 25 percent. A 1996 Reason Foundation study found that investor-owned water companies in California provide water at the same price to consumers as municipal water companies, even though the former must pay local, state, and federal taxes; generally cannot make use of tax-exempt debt; and are expected to earn a profit for their shareholders.
| Table 2. Selected Water Privatization
Savings |
|
| Project | Savings |
| Leominister, Massachusetts (Water and Wastewater) | $3 million capital costs $350,000 annual costs (20 Years) |
| North Brunswick, New Jersey | $9.9 million (concession fees/20 years) |
| Jersey City, New Jersey | 35% annual savings ($3.1 million first year) |
| Roanoke, Alabama (Water and Wastewater) | 30% annually |
A 1993 review of the literature found that recent studies have confirmed the cost advantages of privately-owned water systems over publicly-owned systems. The table below sheds some light on the differences in operating expenses, especially the much higher staffing of government-owned versus investor-owned municipal water providers.
| Table 3. Selected Operating
Expenses for California Investor-Owned and Government Water Agencies |
||
| Investor Owned | Government Owned | |
| Total operating expense per connection | $273 | $330 |
| Employees per 1,000 connections | 1.62 | 3.49 |
| Salaries as percent of operating revenue | 13.40% | 37.13% |
| Maintenance as percent of operating revenue | 5.29% | 9.13% |
3. Best Practices/Case Studies
| Case Study 1: Jersey City, NJ — Contract Operation and Management |
|
The city expects to realize over $68 million in savings over the 5-year contract — a 35 percent reduction in costs. These savings will come from the concession fee ($2.5 million), operational savings ($17.5 million), and substantial increases in bill collection revenues ($48.6 million). When the system was run by the city, only 66 percent of the water produced was actually being paid for by users. The new contract provides financial incentives for the contractor to increase this percentage. If the percentage rises to 70 to 75 percent, United Water gets to keep 5 percent of the increased collections. If it rises to 75 to 80 percent, United Water keeps 10 percent of the increase in collections and if the collection rate exceeds 80 percent, this percentage rises to 25 percent of the increase in collections. The city estimates increased water revenues of $17 million and increased sewage collection of $32 million from the profit sharing arrangement. The city’s system before privatization was so antiquated that it was impossible to look up people’s water bills on the phone in real time. Reason: all records were kept on three-by-five cards. United Water computerized the system. Water rates were unaffected by the privatization and all 138 employees were guaranteed their jobs for at least a year. After that, the number of employees can be reduced, but to no fewer than 80 (the number of employees United Water estimated it would need in its bid). |
| Case Study 2: City of Hawthorne, CA — Long-Term Lease |
|
|
| Case Study 3: North Brunswick, NJ — Long-Term Operations and Maintenance Contract |
|
Water rates will increase by 5.75 percent immediately and annual rate hikes will diminish from that level by .25 percent until reaching 3 percent in the seventh year. Officials calculate that much larger rate hikes would have been necessary to maintain environmental compliance if the facility had remained publicly operated. |
4. How-to-Tips
5. Contact Information
| Practitioners | Daniel Mahoney Purchasing Agent City Hall, Room 108 280 Grove Street Jersey City, NJ 07302 (201) 547-5156 |
| Experts | Adrian Moore Reason Public Policy Institute 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90034 (310)391-2245 (310_391-4395 (fax) Adriantm@aol.com |
Michael Gagliardo Urban Water Institute of U.S. Conference of Mayors 160 I Street NW, Floor 6 Washington, D.C. 2004 (202) 861-6777 |
|
Patrick Maloney 2425 Webb Avenue Suite 100 Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 521-4575 |
6. Research/Articles
7. Legislation
8. Links