Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure how to interpret this statement.. One part of me is disgusted at someone profiting from bad planning and misery of others, the other thinks that this is something that really needs investing.
I meant this in a positive, not negative way. A for-profit company, if done properly, will be able to introduce the required infrastructure where necessary. It should (theoretically at least) also be run in a better way -- if the infrastructure isn't functioning properly, no profits are being made.
Maybe in the "real world" - its not about money, its about prioritization - and this is South Africa - the tender for water infrastructure would be awarded to a human resources company and money would be squandered on inferior infrastructure. There has simply not been enough priority put on upgrading water supply for the two decades we have known about the ever decreasing dam levels. Its not new - there were other priorities at national level and provincial level - and water problem was shunted, every time as a problem for later. Its not that government/municiplaities were not able to do the work -it was a question of who was paying for it. If a private company wanted to do this the expenditure would have been exorbitant - with very little hope of being remunerated because the income would have remained static - the municipalites would have less budget to maintain the systems and no private company would be able to invest that amount of money and make a profit in any short term.