Water is indeed a basic need ...

Water is indeed a basic need and access to it is a basic right. However when it comes to providing a water ( and sewerage) service then it is a user pays business and must be run under strong business, financial and regulatory framework to be sustainable financially and environmentally.

In theory, its the easiest business in the world to run. Demand and supply is predictable and consistent. The real issue for developing countries ( and indeed developed countries in the future) is to overcome the belief that water and sewerage is a right that must be delivered at no cost and often subsidized by governments or international support.  This is an essential foundation for a sustainable utility.

Once this founding principle is in place, the opportunities fall into one of two approaches. Traditionally, a centralised, asset intensive utility model has served communities well for centuries. However, this successful model takes considerable time, money and organisation to develop. Even small town water/sewerage supplies. I have established many of these in Australia and typically a utility of 10,00 customers will have turnover of Aus$30m, assets of several hundred million Aus$, a staff of 50-100 and can easily provide a return of about 10%. Augmenting a supply/service will take several years.

Alternatively, a decentralized approach can be used. This disaggregates the services/assets across a catchment/service area and can be built relatively quickly and securely.  This approach can be run at the community level, but from experience, the lack of business, technical and financial skills often cause the systems to be inefficient, unsustainable and often unhealthy... and defiantly unsustainable.  Success of a decentralised water utility requires all the fundamentals of finance, regulation and management needed in a traditional centralised utility. In fact, I would say the skills needed are higher.

The advantage of a decentralised utility, run as a regional business, are that they can be rapidly built AND incorporate a range of approaches and technology.  Rainwater harvesting and onsite treatment at the community level can be achieved, localised collection, treatment and recycling of effluent can be achieved and even if recycling opportunities are not present (although this should never be the case), modern packed treatment plants can produce effluent of a quality that can be returned to a river/ocean at a quality that exceeds the receiving water and hence have zero impact on downstream users rights. Groundwater resources have been invaluable historically and are by nature a great decentralised source. Recent moves to build dams and desalination plants are often favoured over groundwater extraction due perceived high extraction costs and historical pollution mismanagement. This trend suits centralised utility model and in fact is often used to reinforce traditional business model of centralised utilities.

Should a developing community  (or indeed future sustainable developed community projects) want to establish a sustainable decentralised utility, it should consider establishing an overarching utility model with other communities or through government regulation that can undertake, oversea, plan and manage the delivery of infrastructure and services, just like a traditional centralised.  From a business and service perspective, the utility should appear to operate and deliver services. and operate in strong regulatory environment (in terms of finance, resource use, health and environmental  protection). The overarching utility will have a Board/Management model that matches that of traditional utilities  BUT must be more creative and effective in its planning and delivery of a more varied range of technologies/assets.  The staff will need to be 'above average', be adaptable and listen to its customers more than a traditional centralised utility. However, it will deliver a challenging work environment that will enable the utility to adapt to changes in resource availability under a broad range of current and future climates.

So there is your choice for delivering a sustainable water utility ie centralised or decentralised. The choice comes down toyour community and its government. Unfortunately, the " big" national and international water industry players promote centralised utility model as it suits their profit goals. There is nothing wrong with this. But I would suggest their traditional centralised models have not been shown to be sustainable and hence have pushed governments into augmentation by desalination. In the international water industry  " DESAL IS GOOOOOD!!!i " (to paraphrase Gordon Gecko in Wall St movie).

Desalination augmentation admits defeat of any utility that  claim they are sustainable.  This is not to say desalination is not valuable, but rather that it is only used as a last resort, when all other more sustainable options such as rain water harvesting, recycling and ground water extraction have been exhausted. In the case of Islands, ships, arid countries, desalination combined with recycling is logical. Where as desalination "backup" plants like those in Sydney and Melbourne have become expensive, but profitable white elephants that are paid for by communities to sit idle (while generating $100m profits to their leases who see such plants a triple gold assets that generate reliable dividends to their shareholders).

So whether you consider centralised or decentralised, use desalination plants ( Packet skid based or massive factory sized) wisely. Don't let suited marketers sell you something you don't need.

Hope this helps and adds some food for thought

Bets wishes

Charles