Across the industrial world there has been a long and sometimes quiet struggle over the ownership of essential infrastructure. Electricity grids, railways, telecommunications networks, and pipelines have all passed through cycles of public construction and private acquisition. Yet among these, water occupies a fundamentally different category. It is not merely an economic input or a commercial service. It is a precondition for life, public health, and social stability. When a society debates the governance of water systems, it is not arguing about a typical utility. It is debating the stewardship of a shared biological necessity.
Ontario now finds itself at the edge of such a debate.
Recent legislative changes, most notably those contained within Bill 60 – Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025, create new mechanisms through which municipal water and wastewater systems may be transferred into corporate governance structures. The government’s stated intention is administrative efficiency and infrastructure financing. Ontario’s rapidly growing population requires substantial investment in water infrastructure, and municipalities are under increasing fiscal pressure to expand treatment capacity, pipelines, and pumping stations. From a narrow administrative perspective, the argument is straightforward. Corporate utilities can borrow capital more flexibly and operate with financial tools unavailable to traditional municipal departments.
But efficiency arguments alone cannot settle the deeper question.
Public utilities exist because certain services are too fundamental to leave entirely to the logic of markets. Water systems in Canada were built during the twentieth century precisely because the private delivery of drinking water had repeatedly proven unreliable, inequitable, and sometimes dangerous. Municipal ownership was not an ideological experiment. It was the result of a century of public-health lessons learned through epidemics, contamination events, and uneven private provision.
Ontario’s own history contains one of the most sobering reminders of that truth. The tragedy of Walkerton Water Crisis demonstrated with painful clarity that water governance demands uncompromising accountability. The response in the years that followed was not to dilute public oversight but to strengthen it. Ontario built one of the most rigorous drinking water regulatory regimes in the world, premised on the principle that safe water is a public responsibility.
That principle deserves careful protection.
The concern raised by critics of the new legislative framework is not that privatization will occur immediately. Rather, the concern lies in the structural pathway that corporatization creates. When water utilities are moved out of direct municipal governance and into corporate entities, the nature of decision-making changes. Boards replace councils. Rate structures become financial instruments. Infrastructure planning is evaluated increasingly through the lens of return on investment rather than the broader calculus of community welfare.
None of these shifts automatically produce privatization. Yet they move the system closer to the institutional architecture within which privatization becomes possible.
The international experience provides numerous examples of this progression. In several jurisdictions, the path toward private water delivery began not with outright sales of infrastructure but with the creation of corporate utilities, public-private partnerships, and long-term concession agreements. Over time, financial pressures and political incentives often pushed these arrangements further toward private control. Once essential infrastructure is embedded within corporate governance frameworks, the distinction between public service and commercial utility can gradually blur.
The risk is not merely ideological. It is practical.
Water systems require long-term investment horizons measured in decades. Pipes laid beneath city streets may remain in service for half a century. Treatment plants operate for generations. Public ownership aligns naturally with these timelines because governments exist to steward infrastructure across electoral cycles. Private entities, even well-regulated ones, operate under shorter financial expectations. Shareholder value and quarterly performance rarely align with the slow maintenance rhythms of buried municipal infrastructure.
There is also the matter of democratic legitimacy. Municipal water systems today are ultimately accountable to elected councils. Citizens can vote out the officials responsible for water policy. Rate increases, infrastructure investments, and service priorities are debated in public forums. Corporate governance, by contrast, places these decisions within boardrooms whose members are not directly accountable to voters.
Water policy should not be insulated from democratic oversight. It should be anchored within it.
None of this denies the real financial pressures facing municipalities. Ontario’s growing cities must build enormous quantities of new water infrastructure to support housing construction and economic expansion. Financing models will need to evolve. Innovative approaches to capital investment may be necessary. Yet innovation in financing should not be mistaken for a justification to weaken public ownership.
The core principle should remain simple and clear.
Water systems belong to the communities that depend on them. The reservoirs, aqueducts, pumping stations, and treatment plants that sustain modern cities were built with public resources over generations. They represent a shared civic inheritance. Their purpose is not to generate profit but to safeguard public health and ensure universal access to a basic human necessity.
Public utilities exist precisely because some services are too important to treat as commodities. Water is foremost among them.
Ontario’s policymakers would therefore be wise to proceed with caution. Legislative frameworks designed for administrative flexibility can sometimes produce unintended consequences decades later. Once governance structures shift, reversing course becomes difficult. Infrastructure systems have a way of locking in the institutional assumptions under which they were built.
The question facing the province is therefore larger than the technical design of utility corporations. It is about the kind of stewardship Ontarians expect for the most essential resource in their society.
A civilized state recognizes that certain responsibilities cannot be outsourced. Among them is the simple but profound duty to ensure that every citizen can turn on a tap and trust what flows from it.
Water, quite simply, should remain in the hands of the people.
The Rowanwood Chronicles 