Yeah, the typical default solution is to just have the government pay for it. From an economics standpoint I think the government has little incentive to ensur

Yeah, the typical default solution is to just have the government pay for it. From an economics standpoint I think the government has little incentive to ensure water quality because there's no competitor to take their business. Just look at Flint. Also once you start subsidizing, what stops people from abusing the water supply? If I'm not paying for the water bill, I won't care to self-regulate the amount I use which puts the amount available in the water source in danger for everyone else. Since the government already wastes a lot of money, I'm not sure how I feel about this. Not to mention when they realize they need to increase the taxes to cover the cost of researching and drilling for additional sources. A company will make sure it's not wasting money because it needs to stay competitive. I'm just playing devils advocate here, these are tough problems to solve. I certainly don't possess the industrial knowledge it takes to provide water for millions of people, but some people think the solution is easier than it is. That's all I'm doing in this thread, thought provoking.