A bill to revise the Water Supply Act was approved coercively in the House of Representatives in the midst of parliamentary disarray in the extended session of the Diet July 5. The move followed the school scandals involving the leading government officials, the controversial work style reform and enactment of the casino law. Further debates on the bill will be made in the Upper House during the current extraordinary session. The point lies in privatization of clean water service. Water is a common asset of citizens.

LIFE SUPPORTING LINE OF WATER SHOULD BE OPERATED PUBLICLY

Countryside falls economically and infrastructure gets older

A water supply network was arranged in the area of 26% of the entire territory of Japan in the decade of 1950. In the 1960s the rate surged over 50% along with the rapid economic growth. In the decade of 1980 it reached 90%, and at present it attains 98%.

Clean water service is usually operated by local governments with some exceptions. Therefore, excluding big cities, managing foundations are not so strong. In some municipalities whose population counts 10 thousand only three people on the average are in charge of operation.

Under these circumstances water pipeline infrastructure faces expected lifetime as these facilities were intensively built in the 1970s. Several obstacles must be overcome, including costs to renew utilities and succession of technologies. For these reasons discussions have been made to review the Water Supply Act to foster the management basis with an objective to incorporate public organizations.

The proposed bill, however, contains ‘links of public authorities with business entities’. The agenda provides ‘a concession method’, which is to transfer the right of management to the private sector. This is a mechanism that allows private companies to operate publicly-owned facilities.

Today, in compliance with the PFI (= Private Finance Initiative) laws, local governments can transfer water services to private entities; a municipal authority abandons the status to permit water services, while a business entity should be authorized anew to engage in the services. In this framework municipalities are not able to cope with situations produced by natural disasters and accidents. Therefore, the current revision suggests that local government should retain the permission status while private companies should be in charge of operation.

Is the policy right?

Some people claim merits of privatization: a big cost reduction in operation thanks to market competitions. It is hard, however, for smaller local authorities to make profits, with exception of big cities.

Population decreases in many cities and villages, in which collection of water rate declines, impacting negatively on management. Water service technologies of Japan are said to be of the world’s top level. Municipalities will unable to accumulate and inherit these technologies to coming generations and will have to respond vulnerably to natural disasters that happen frequently.

Water is vital not only to sustain lives of people but also to keep up human life itself. It is extraordinarily important infrastructure. Its maintenance, control and operation, including budgets, should be carried out publicly by the state and local governments.

Look at the world!

Privatization of water supply was implemented in the United Kingdom and in the cities of Paris and Berlin. But today the authorities have made decisions to return to the previous public ownership system. People of Japan are not informed of these facts.

Why do these cities have taken the policy? It is because private entities seek the biggest profit, which has led to an obscure rating system to bring about higher rates and to reduction of personnel to ruin quality of water and services.

The key lies in mass struggles of workers and citizens.

November 6, 2018