The answer is that 1. They’re privatised but 2. They’re effectively monopolies. The argument for privatisation is basically that private companies need to innovate and keep prices low in order to compete in the free market against rival companies providing the same service/product — in practice though unlike something like electricity (which I also think should be renationalised) you don’t actually get to choose which company supplies water to your home, it’s just based on where you live and there’s only one option, so soon each catchment the water companies don’t actually have any competition.

They don’t need to innovate because the consumers don’t have the ability to switch to another supplier (unless they want to be moving house constantly), equally they have no incentive to keep their prices low.

So they’re effectively the worst of both worlds. If they’re going to be private sector you might as well do it properly by creating actually competition, otherwise just make them public sector.

It's almost like the business regulation wouldn't need to be so strong if it was never privatized in the first place.

Now it is time to spend more. The costs will fall on consumers: one way or another, if Britons want cleaner water they will have to pay for it. Private investors will demand a higher return on any funds they put in, especially if the water companies’ scope to borrow is limited.

But talk of nationalisation is a distraction—and a poor use of scarce public funds. Whether water companies are owned by the state or remain in private hands, a fierce watchdog will be needed to keep the industry in line. Indeed, elected politicians would probably be even more reluctant than arms-length regulators to spend taxpayers’ money or raise bills to pay for necessary investment. Those regulators will, at least, now have the cautionary tale of Ofwat’s failings to guide them.

Bearing in mind that The Economist usually cheers on deregulation, it’s comical that they pin the blame on OFWAT’s ineffectiveness.