You wrote:
I think that the real issue is, what operational goals will the system have, what financial resources and who is the person in charge
The point / focus of my post and of the original articles I wrote is a bit different: I am only trying to point out that, no matter how you define goals, find the necessary money and choose who will be in charge, you must have an efficient, complete, real time monitoring system that tells you how things are going: for example if and how much water is wasted were, and other data I mentioned in the original articles. In other words, I’m only saying that it’s useless to define long-term, general goals, funding and managers if you then let them free to do whatever they please without continuous control.
But the true facts are rarely known to citizens, so I think these decisions are very difficult to put to a vote that has any real value.
exactly my (only) point: let’s make the true facts, that is the raw data showing how the system is working, viewable online in real time.
]]>what I read is the following: an essential resource for life should be entrusted to entities only interested in their shareholders profit, and because the public is incompetent, it should not have a say in these matters? so privatisation should be a private matter, done without the involvement of the citizens?
]]>