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]

Return to Top


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%

Return to Top


3. Best Practices/Case Studies


Case Study 1: Jersey City, NJ — Contract Operation and Management


In May 1996, Jersey City turned over the operation of its water system to United Water. All six bidders in the highly competitive bidding process offered to run the water system at a lower cost than the city’s current operation. The winner, United Water Company, is now responsible for everything "from soup to nuts," — everything from the aqueducts and pipes to bill collection.

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


In March 1996, the first ever long-term lease of an existing municipal water system was completed by the Southern California city of Hawthorne to the California Water Service Company (Cal Water). Cal Water made an up-front payment of $6.5 million and must pay annual lease payments of $100,000 for 15 years. The lease made Cal Water responsible for all needed capital improvements, and the city residents will benefit from the economies of scale made possible by sharing some fixed costs with Cal Water’s adjacent Hermosa-Redondo Beach operations. The agreement included a provision that existing Hawthorne employees will be transferred to Cal Water at the same pay and benefit levels. Customer rates in Hawthorne will be set at the same level as those in the Hermosa-Redondo district.




Case Study 3: North Brunswick, NJ — Long-Term Operations and Maintenance Contract


In the first non-recourse financing of a water system in the United States, North Brunswick signed a 20-year franchise of its water and wastewater systems to U.S. Water LLC on February 27, 1996. The contract gave the township $30 million up front, of which $24 million went to retire the system’s debt. U.S. Water is paying a concession fee of $1 million for the first year, $600,000 a year for the following nine years, $1.5 million for the next five years and $2 million for the remaining five years. The township will save $45,000 annually and the privatization also will provide capital for much needed maintenance.

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.



Return to Top


4. How-to-Tips


Return to Top


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

Return to Top


6. Research/Articles



Return to Top


7. Legislation



Return to Top


8. Links


Return to Top