Privatization not Prichard's solution

ACITIZENS group in Prichard shouldn't try to turn the argument over the future of the city's water and sewer services into an ideological debate over the merits of privatizing government services.

This approach probably won't strengthen the group's position in its disagreement with the Prichard Water Works and Sewer Board over the board's decision to outsource its operations to a private company. The Press-Register editorial board believes the group, United Concerned Citizens of Prichard, would be better off concentrating on pragmatic local concerns about the public-private deal.

Food & Water Watch, a national advocacy group that opposes "water privatization," has joined forces with the Prichard citizens group. The activists argue that deals such as the Prichard water board's arrangement with Severn Trent Services, a British company, usually result in higher water and sewer rates for customers.

It's unlikely customers in Prichard will face even higher bills than those they've been paying with the water board exercising direct control of the system. Prichard's water customers pay about three times more than the system pays for water it receives from the Mobile Area Water and Sewer Service.

So privatization isn't the central issue here. The Prichard group was moved to action by the apparent inability of the public water system to deliver services at a reasonable cost.

Privatization, or partial privatization, isn't the answer to Prichard's problems, either.

A small system burdened by debt stemming from earlier court-ordered environmental improvements, the Prichard utility can't provide services as efficiently as a larger utility. That's why the Prichard board should have accepted a proposed merger with MAWSS.

Instead, the board decided to cling to its oversight role and outsource operations to Severn Trent.

Privatization or outsourcing may well work for some public utilities and their customers. But, as a 2005 Pacific Institute study of water systems concluded, "A decision on whether or how to involve the private sector needs to be made on a case-by-case basis based on local values and conditions. What works for one community may not work for another."

In our view, Prichard's water customers would benefit more from a merger with MAWSS than they would from the public-private deal approved by the water board.