If you are in England, UK:

Consumer Council for Water : Consumer Council for Water via kwout

If you are in Victoria, Australia:

Energy and Water Ombudsman (Victoria) via kwout

If you are in Indonesia:

Homepage ’ Website OMBUDSMAN RI via kwout

With one caveat however. The Indonesian Ombudsman does not deal particularly with water (or utilities issues). So I have no idea how they can help, especially when the service is privatized. Read my article here.

Related Posts:

Suppose you have just built a new home in a nice city. All your neighbours has water connection, unfortunately, the local water company refuse to extend their pipes into your property. Do you think they are acting against the law?

Before we argue on the basis of positive law, I will first raise the issue on what the law ‘should be’ : Do you think the law should obligate water companies to provide connections to consumer? To put it into other terms, can water companies refuse a connection request? If they can, under what basis?

The answer to the first question is ‘yes’. The reason is because water is a special kind of good. Many authors classify it into merit good and quasi public good, I do not wish to discuss this in a more detail. To illustrate, consider the differences of buying water from buying clothes. In buying clothes, you have a number of option, you can go either to debenhams, zara or marks & spencer. But for water, it is likely that you are stuck with only one company for the whole city. If that company refuses to trade, then you are doomed. This is what natural monopoly is all about in practice: consumer is stucked with few option or no option at all. Existing customer also find it difficult to exit from the market as no competitor is available in their local. So, unless the water company is regulated, they can do anything they want.

How should the law deals with this phenomenon?

The English Law obligates water companies to ‘satisfy reasonable demands’. This is what the Water Industry Act 1991 says:

Domestic connections

45Duty to make connections with main

(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section and to sections 46 and 47 below, it shall be the duty of a water undertaker (in accordance with section 51 below) to make a connection under this section where the owner or occupier of any premises in the undertaker’s area which—

(a)consist in the whole or any part of a building; or

(b)are premises on which any person is proposing to erect any building or part of a building,

serves a notice on the undertaker requiring it, for the purpose of providing a supply of water for domestic purposes to that building or part of a building, to connect a service pipe to those premises with one of the undertaker’s water mains.

(2)Where a notice has been served for the purposes of this section, the duty imposed by subsection (1) above shall be a duty, at the expense of the person serving the notice, to make the connection required by the notice if—

(a)the main with which the service pipe is required to be connected is neither a trunk main nor a water main which is or is to be used solely for the purpose of supplying water otherwise than for domestic purposes; and

(b)such conditions as the undertaker may have imposed under sections 47 to 50 below have been satisfied;

and, subject to section 51 below, that duty shall arise whether or not the service pipe to which the notice relates has been laid when the notice is served.

(3)A notice for the purposes of this section—

(a)shall be accompanied or supplemented by all such information as the undertaker may reasonably require; and

(b)if the notice has effect so that a requirement is imposed on the undertaker by virtue of section 46(4) below, shall set out the matters that have given rise to the imposition of that requirement;

but, subject to section 51(5) below and without prejudice to the effect (if any) of any other contravention of this subsection, a failure to provide information in pursuance of the obligation to supplement such a notice shall not invalidate that notice.

(4)The duty imposed on a water undertaker by this section shall be owed to the person who served the notice by virtue of which the duty arises.

(5)Where a duty is owed by virtue of subsection (4) above to any person, any breach of that duty which causes that person to sustain loss or damage shall be actionable at the suit of that person; but, in any proceedings brought against a water undertaker in pursuance of this subsection, it shall be a defence for the undertaker to show that it took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the breach.

(6)Where a water undertaker carries out any works which it is its duty under this section to carry out at another person’s expense, the undertaker shall be entitled to recover from that person an amount equal to the expenses reasonably incurred by the undertaker in carrying out the works.

(7)Nothing in this section or in sections 46 to 51 below shall impose any duty on a water undertaker to connect a service pipe to any premises with a service pipe to any other premises.

(8)In the following provisions of this Chapter a notice served for the purposes of this section is referred to as a connection notice.

Now let’s see what the Indonesian Law ( Government Regulation 16 Year 2005) suggests:

Hak dan Kewajiban Penyelenggara
Pasal 68

 

(2) Setiap penyelenggara berkewajiban untuk:
a. menjamin pelayanan yang memenuhi standar yang ditetapkan;
b. memberikan informasi yang diperlukan kepada semua pihak yang berkepentingan
atas kejadian atau keadaan yang bersifat khusus dan berpotensi akan
menyebabkan perubahan atas kualitas dan kuantitas pelayanan;
c. mengoperasikan sarana dan memberikan pelayanan kepada semua
pemakai/pelanggan yang telah memenuhi syarat, kecuali dalam keadaan memaksa
(force majeure);
d. memberikan informasi mengenai pelaksanaan pelayanan;
e. memberikan ganti rugi yang layak kepada pelanggan atas kerugian yang
dideritanya;
f. mengikuti dan mematuhi upaya penyelesaian secara hukum apabila terjadi
perselisihan; dan
g. berperanserta pada upaya perlindungan dan pelestarian sumber daya air dalam
rangka konservasi lingkungan.
(3) Pemberian ganti rugi sebagaiman dimaksud pada ayat (2) huruf e diupayakan
berdasarkan penyelesaian di luar pengadilan atau melalui pengadilan.
(4) Upaya penyelesaian di luar pengadilan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (3)
dilakukan dengan arbitrase atau

Sorry for non English speakers. Article 68(2) of GR 16/2005 regulates the  obligations of a water undertaker in Indonesia. Unfortunately, the obligations they owed is only towards existing customers. I am unable to find any provisions obligating the undertakers to extend their pipes to prospective customers. There is, however, a general obligation for the Regional Government to provide water services to citizens in their locale (See Art. 40.c).

Hence, if you complain why your water company refuse to extend their pipes to your newly erected building or homes, the law may not be on your side. Sorry :(

Related Posts:

Indonesian Water Services Suffering from a Lack of Governance

Supreme Court Decision on Water Monopoly in Batam 

I hope our brother blog would have some time to indulge us in this never ending debate about the right to water (IUCN paper here):

The term ‘right to water’ does not only refer to the rights of people but also to the needs of the environment with regard to river basins, lakes, etc. Realistically, a right to water cannot be secured without attention to this broader context. A failure to recognise water as an environmental resource may jeopardise the rights-based approach, which views water primarily as a social resource. (Scanlon et al. 2004: 22)

I have no doubt that there is a duty to protect the environment. But arguing that the right to water extends into the environmental right to water is a bit too much, I think – or perhaps not?

I don’t quite understand the logical flow. Is it like this:

• Right to Water –> Secure the trees and lakes, etc –> Water for everyone

If yes. Then how ‘bout this:

• Right to education –> safe the trees –> trees to build schools for everyone

(Which means that everyone on the Easter Island violated the right to education—as well as the right to housing, health and so many other rights). I have no doubt that cutting the trees too much may reduce the long term of availability of water. But cutting trees may also provide immediate housing and livelihood. Sucking out fossil water, the great manmade river project (BBC news story here) for example is definitely not sustainable (and its environmental impacts are not yet known), but they said that it’d be able to quench Libya’s thirst for tens of years.

Qadhafi may actually be providing the short-term needs of the Libyan for water, without any regard to environmental sustainability. Is this not the right to water?

Consider the view of this Equadorian blogger about their water law (H.T. to our neighbor blog). He demands that the law must comprise of 9 points, one of them being the rights of the nature and a deprivatization policy.

From the outset of the right to water debate, we can see a differing view. One perceives it to be ultimately anthropocentric, while the other sees it as inherent with the environment. Integrating the latter’s view into the former might be difficult, as it must pass through some anthropocentrical tests. For example, if you support the latter’s view, you will have to convince Qhadafi that drilling out Libya’s fossil water will jeopardize humanity. If the harm caused by the activity is remote, or ‘insubstantial’ compared to the immediate gains, then you might lose your argument. If the harm is unknown, a defeat is certain.

There are practical implications too. If the right to water is to comprise the latter view, its enforcement may be on the same level with existing environmental principles, which are considered soft laws. However, the point of having it is to provide a powerful advocacy basis for human rights campaigner. Then, there is a fear that interpreting the right of environment to water into the right to water would dilute this power.

Quick blogging. Follow this hashtag #22TwDb

Twitter Debate: Virtual Law Offices -- Game Changer or Business as Usual? (w/Transcript) - News - ABA Journal 

From Ted:

1. You've got to judge law mainly by its effect on the broader society, not individual disputes.

2. For law to be the platform for freedom, people have to trust it.

3. Law sets boundaries, and on one side of those boundaries are all the things you can't do or must do. But those same boundaries are supposed to define and protect a dry ground of freedom.

4.To rebuild the boundaries of freedom, two changes are essential: (i) simplify the law and (ii) restore the authority to judges and officials to interpret and apply the law.

Philip continued:

We have to simplify the law. We have to migrate from all this complexity towards general principles and goals. The constitution is only 16 pages long. Worked pretty well for 200 years. Law has to be simple enough so that people can internalize it in their daily choices. Here is the hardest and biggest change. We have to restore the authority to judges and officials to interpret and apply the law. interpret and apply the law. (Applause) We have to rehumanize the law. To make law simple so that you feel free, the people in charge have to be free to use their judgment to interpret and apply the law in accord with reasonable social norms. As you're going down, and walking down the sidewalk during the day you have to think, that if there is a dispute, there is somebody in society who sees it as their job to affirmatively protect you if you are acting reasonably. That person doesn't exist today.

You know what, I asked futurist David Brin once, and he told me that the law of the future will only have one or two articles.

With a little reflection thanks to Star Trek, I think the law of the future will only have one article.

Separately, Gayus Lumbuun from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) said that the House leaders had to explain what really happened on the documents which should have been completely sent to the KPK.

Deputy House speaker Priyo Budi Santoso from the Golkar Party said he too was surprised by the fact that the KPK had yet to receive all the necessary documents and that the House leaders would investigate into the issue.