“poacher-gamekeeper” problem. The water-quality problem was more a result of financial constraints than of the conflict of interest. With the change in character of the water authority governance, the lack of commitment to improved water quality was subject to deserved criticism.

In the May 1987 announcement of its intention to privatize the water authorities, the government gave as the only reason its being “increasingly concerned by the role of the water authorities as both poachers and gamekeepers in this field.” There was strong opposition from a wide range of individuals and groups (Jeffery, 2000). People who had had few reservations about the privatization of competitive industries such as British Airways often seemed to see water as “different.” In one way this was understandable, given the monopoly nature of the industry. Some of the opposition came from the trades unions, which were concerned about job losses and/or worsening terms and conditions of service. There was also a common feeling that water ought not to be a vehicle for generation of profits. The government proposed a new method of economic regulation, that was a complex mixture of control of price increases, environmental regulation, and control of drinking water quality. Many were suspicious of this system. The government argued that the ability to make profits within such a regulatory system would spur new companies to improve efficiency, which otherwise would be lacking.

In addition, it was agreed that some £24 billion would need to be invested in water and sewerage facilities over the next 10 years to catch up on arrears after years that the government itself had limited the capacity of the water authorities to obtain funds for capital construction. By privatizing, not only would the exchequer not be strained, but it would receive a tidy bounty from the sale of the authorities, whose assets had been accrued from investments over generations by the citizens through their local authorities. The intent of the privatization thus was not to improve the lot of the people in England and Wales, other than those who are shareholders in the water companies.

The perception of the people of England and Wales about the privatization has been anything but favorable. The prices of the shares had been set low to assure their quick purchase, and their value immediately jumped considerably. The salaries of government water executives were modest by comparison with the salaries of captains of industry who had taken over the water companies. A combination of increasing rates, poorer service, and a perception of the “high life” of the private water managers did not endear the companies to their customers. Also, much of