> What should have happened instead is that the world bank should have helped to finance the new system as a way to make up for their previous disastrous handli

> What should have happened instead is that the world bank should have helped to finance the new system as a way to make up for their previous disastrous handling of the situation That seems like charity, which granted i am all for, but i don't think the World Bank is a charitable organization, plus 300 million is a MASSIVE amount for charity. In the absence of charity it seems like the two choices are 1. Have no water or 2. Pay a lot to have water. At least with 2 you have the potential for the lowering of water prices over time. Is there an alternative? Or am i wrong about the world bank and these charitable acts are it's purpose?